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.

Democrats Accuse Gowdy of Politicizing Investigations

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

By Ben Geman – National Journal

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.

download (1)

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.

benghazi 9-11

“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.”

Letter to Boehner on "Select Committee on Benghazi"

Editor’s Note – Today, the following letter was sent to John Boehner regarding the Benghazi investigation and the need for a “Select Committee on Benghazi.” Among the 77 signatories of the letter is MG Paul E. Vallely, Chairman and CEO of Stand Up America US.

It has been almost 500 days since the attack…

“To the living we owe respect. To the dead we owe the truth.” –Voltaire

The Honorable John Boehner
Speaker, U.S. House of Representatives
The Capitol, H-232
Washington, D.C., 20515

January 6, 2014

Dear Speaker Boehner,obama-benghazi_s640x427

We write to express our grave concern over the failure of your House of Representatives to extract the truth from the Obama administration concerning the attack on our diplomatic and intelligence facilities in Benghazi, Libya; and, the brutal deaths of Ambassador Christopher Stephens, U.S. Foreign Service Officer Sean Smith, and security officers Ty Woods and Glen Doherty.

To date, five (5) different committees of the House have conducted separate hearings, uncovering information in a piecemeal fashion lacking professional investigators. The five committees’ efforts are disjointed and uncoordinated. The Obama administration has benefited from that dysfunctional process to hide the truth. Hardly any Obama administration witnesses have testified – publicly or privately. You have resisted repeated calls for the creation of a select investigative committee with subpoena authority. It appears that you are satisfied to allow that state of investigative incoherence and ambiguity to continue. The last public hearing by any of the five committees was held in September – four (4) months ago. The families of the dead who fought valiantly to protect the mission and their families, the survivors, and the American people deserve better from you and your Members of Congress. They deserve the absolute truth from their government. Your failure to get the truth and hold public officials accountable increases the possibility of other repeat attacks and additional failures to defend Americans abroad.

On Sunday, December 29, 2013, the New York Times published a story concerning the Benghazi attacks that directly contradicts the sworn testimony of witnesses who appeared before various committees. Besides the obvious New York Times editorial and political objectives of inoculating Hillary Clinton and her 2016 presidential campaign from further criticism of her failures as Secretary of State, the story contradicts objective truth and established facts in a way that confuses the public. Your inaction and failure to lead on the Benghazi investigation directly contributes to the repetition of lies; a lack of accountability from responsible government officials; and the political advancement of persons who seek to continue to “fundamentally transform” the Constitution and our country. The New York Times recent publication proves the Benghazi story is not “going away.”

Your oversight of the Department of Justice and Federal Bureau of Investigation has been without any meaningful effect or result. Not a single terrorist in this well-planned and executed military attack by radical Islamists has been apprehended. Ahmed Abu Khattala, a ringleader of the attack, granted long interviews to reporters in Benghazi cafes, while the Obama administration – and you – have done nothing. Nearly 16 months after the terrorist attack, the American public has no accountability and no plan of action from House leadership. The public is subjected to undisputed disinformation from a White House who calls the terror attack a “phony scandal.” While the White House repeats false and misleading information, you continue to ignore claims, documented by Rep. Frank Wolf, of intelligence officers being intimidated with multiple, punitive polygraph examinations and harassing non-disclosure agreement demands. If Benghazi is “phony” why are intelligence officers being threatened not to speak and subjected to polygraph exams? Why do you stand by passively?

Some analysts believe your inaction and passivity towards getting to the truth concerning Benghazi is because you were briefed on the intelligence and special operations activities in Libya as a member of the “Super 8.” You may possess “guilty knowledge.” We recall how then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi developed a form of “amnesia” concerning a documented briefing she received on so-called “enhanced interrogation techniques” – later termed “torture” for political purposes. Are you in the same position as your predecessor? Are you dodging a legitimate, thorough, coordinated investigation of Benghazi because it will damage your political position as Speaker?

You should be embarrassed that members of Congress, and your own party, are forced to file Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests with Obama administration agencies to get basic information about the Benghazi issue. What a sad and pathetic statement about the operations of House standing committees looking into this tragedy that FOIA has become the last resort of even Republican Members seeking the truth! Are you concerned that the scattershot and untimely efforts of the various committees may actually be doing more harm than good at documenting facts? These are all examples of Republican leadership failures. How are you accountable?

Rep. Mike Rogers and the Intelligence Committee seem to act as defense counsel for the Obama administration. A recent Intelligence Committee weekly update note stated as fact that no arms shipments were being run from Libya, and that no intelligence officers were being coerced not to speak. There is substantial evidence to the contrary on both counts. Why does Rep. Rogers parrot the discredited falsehoods of the so-called “Accountability Review Board” (ARB)? Conflicting accounts, testimony and evidence need to be investigated – not dismissed or ignored. Don’t those contradictions and questions compel you, on behalf of the American people, to take any action to resolve the matter and get to the truth?

Aren’t you concerned that General Carter Ham was suddenly and prematurely recalled from AFRICOM, and then made statements at the Aspen Institute that directly contradicted the Obama administration’s position on the nature of the attack in Benghazi? Why has General Ham not testified publicly before one of the House committees?

The New York Times story reports that the CIA was, in fact, collecting weapons in Benghazi. If true, why was the CIA running a separate, parallel weapons program from the State Department’s $40 million collection effort? Where did the CIA-purchased weapons go? Is the Obama administration arming al Qaeda affiliated jihadists in Syria?

If you wished, you could have publicly engaged Rep. Devin Nunes concerning his November 6, 2013 letter to you, addressing the nine unanswered questions about Benghazi. Instead, there was thundering silence from your office. You have an opportunity to show strong leadership and resolve a national disgrace perpetrated by specific public officials. You are failing.

Your reluctance to lead and resistance to create a Select Committee on Benghazi must end. More than 75% of all House Republicans – with the conspicuous absence of those in leadership or committee chairmen – have cosponsored Rep. Wolf’s Select Committee bill. Few bills in this Congress demonstrate such overwhelming support from Republicans. Additionally, the bill enjoys the support of national security advocacy groups, and the Wall Street Journal editorial board, among many others.

We urge you to bring the bill to the floor for a vote immediately to start effective oversight on this critical national security matter immediately. We have waited long enough. Your approach is not working.

Mr. Speaker, we call upon you to act now and create a Select Committee on Benghazi to investigate all aspects of the United States involvement in Libya, to include, but not be limited to the attacks of September 11, 2012. It must now also include the protracted cover-up the American people, the families of the fallen and those with loved ones serving overseas have endured. The new committee must have subpoena power, capable staff and Members from both parties who are committed to finding the truth, not playing politics. The Committee must be staffed with new, professional, qualified and experienced investigators. It must have resources to conduct a thorough, comprehensive investigation and issue an exhaustive report before this Congress adjourns.

Sincerely,

The Undersigned:

(Titles for identification purposes only)

  1. Charles Woods, Father of Ty Woods
  2. Pat Smith, Mother of Sean Smith
  3. Michael Ingmire, Musician/Writer, Uncle to Sean Smith
  4. Adm. Jerome L. Johnson, USN Ret., former Vice Chief of Naval Operations
  5. Lt. Gen. E.G. “Buck” Shuler, Jr., USAF, (Ret)
  6. Lt. Gen. Richard D. Lawrence, USA (Ret)
  7. LTG William G. Boykin, USA (Ret)
  8. Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely, USA Ret, Chairman, Stand Up America
  9. Maj. Gen. Carroll D. Childers, USA (Ret), Ranger
  10. Maj. Gen. Thomas F. Cole, USA (Ret)
  11. Maj. Gen. Richard M. Cooke, USMC (Ret)
  12. Amb. Henry F. Cooper, Former Director, Strategic Defense Initiative
  13. LTC Allen B. West (US Army, Ret) former Congressman, FL
  14. Capt Joseph R. John, USNA ‘62, USN (Ret), Chairman, Combat Veterans For Congress PAC
  15. Debra Burlingame, Co-founder, 9/11 Families for a Safe and Strong America
  16. Elaine Donnelly, President, Center for Military Readiness
  17. Dick Brauer, Col, USAF (Ret), Special Operation Speaks
  18. Tom Fitton, President, Judicial Watch
  19. Allen Roth, Secure America Now
  20. Joel A. Arends, Veterans for a Strong America
  21. Ginni Thomas, President, Liberty Consulting
  22. Catherine Engelbrecht, President, True the Vote
  23. Anita MonCrief, Black Voters Alliance
  24. David Wallace, Restore America’s Mission
  25. Dr. James Pollock, Maj., USAF (Ret), OIF VETx2, SOCOM, Wounded Warrior Congressional Advocate
  26. John J. Molloy, Chairman, National Vietnam & Gulf War Veterans Coalition
  27. James C. Harding, Col USAF (Ret) National Spokesman for Veteran Defenders of America
  28. Diane M. Sendlenski, Veteran US Air Force, Special Operations Speaks Coordinator
  29. John G. B. Howland, Publisher, USNA-At-Large
  30. Katherine Cornell Gorka, Executive Director, The Westminster Institute
  31. Paul Caprio, Executive Director, Family Pac Federal
  32. William L. Walton, Chairman, Rappahannock Ventures LLC
  33. Sandy Rios, Director of Governmental Affairs, American Family Association
  34. David Horowitz, President, Freedom Center
  35. Peter Thomas, Chairman, The Conservative Caucus
  36. Rear Adm. Hugh P. Scott, MC, USN (Ret)
  37. Rear Adm. Bill McDaniel, USN (Ret)
  38. Rear Adm. John A. Moriarty, USN, (Ret)
  39. Rear Adm. Robert B. McClinton, USN (Ret)
  40. Rear Adm. Don G. Primeau, USN (Ret)
  41. Brig. Gen. Michael Neil, USMCR (Ret)
  42. Brig. Gen. Francis Hughes, USA (Ret)
  43. Brig. Gen. John Zierdt, Jr., USA (Ret)
  44. Brig. Gen. Michael T. Byrnes, USA (Ret)
  45. Brig. Gen. William A. Bloomer, USMC (Ret)
  46. Captain Kenneth Rauch, USN (Ret)
  47. Captain Peter A. Hewett, JAGC, U.S. Navy (Ret)
  48. Captain James Knight, USN (Ret)
  49. Captain Roger W. Barnett, USN (Ret)
  50. Captain Gregory Streeter, USN (Ret) USNA ’58
  51. Col. G. Huntington Banister, USA (Ret), and former Acting Director, Selective Service System, 1994
  52. Col. S. Badiner, USMC (Ret)
  53. Col. Gregory G. Raths, USMC (Ret)
  54. Col. Joseph V. Potter, USAF (Ret)
  55. Col. Rob Maness, USAF (Ret), U.S. Senate Candidate 2014, R-Louisiana
  56. Dan Bongino, 2012 Republican Nominee for US Senate, MD
  57. Lt. Col. Ken Benway, USA (Ret)
  58. Lt. Col. Dennis B. Haney, USAF (Ret)
  59. CDR Randolph J. Horhutz, USNA ’61, SC, USN (Ret)
  60. Everett Woolum, CMSGT, USAF (Ret)
  61. Gregory J. Rose, USNA ’73
  62. Thomas Corboy, USNA, ‘61
  63. Anthony R. Papandrea, USNA ‘61
  64. Raymond H. Clary, Jr., USNA ‘65
  65. John W. Slagle, U.S. Navy Aviation veteran (Ret) Special Agent U.S.B.P. Anti-Smuggling Unit
  66. Sarah Folger White, Former Presidential Commissioner
  67. Dick and Patricia Schermerhorn, Appleton, WI
  68. Lee Boyland, Author, former military officer, entrepreneur, nuclear engineer
  69. Susan Creed Percy, Advocate for Military Families
  70. Dave Hollenbeck, retired CA Highway Patrol
  71. Paul F. Wirtz, Military family, OH resident
  72. John Lillywhite, U.S. Citizen
  73. Gene Andrews, U. S. Citizen
  74. Mrs. Nancy Olbert, Supervisor Criminal Advocates, Daytona, FL State Attorney Office
  75. Dr. Frank Ingels, Military Defense Consultant, MSIC/TETRA Office
  76. Robert M. Trent, Senior Special Agent, USINS and former Marine and Vietnam combat veteran
  77. Kelly Monroe Kullberg, Christians for a Sustainable Economy; OH resident