-Author: Obama fueling Hillary’s campaign scandals
-Number of Hillary Clinton’s emails flagged for classified data grows to 60 as review continues
16 August 2015 Chuck Norris reveals 1 major detail that ‘could have been easily overlooked’
On June 23, 1973, the world was given the Watergate smoking gun via the taping of a meeting between then-President Richard Nixon and White House Chief of Staff H. R. Haldeman.
On Dec. 1, 2009, the world was given Hillary’s email-gate smoking gun via an email few know about between then Secretary of State Clinton and her close confidant and counselor, Cheryl D. Mills.
The email is only seven words long and has just come to light as Hillary simultaneously and finally turned over her private email server to the Department of Justice – something she refused to do for months until last week.
The State Department declassified another batch of Hillary’s emails on July 31 from the roughly 30,000 emails (55,000 pages) that were sent during her time at the State Department. (They’ve released roughly 3,600 emails of the 30,000 thus far.)
One email in this recent July 31 batch could have been easily overlooked. It was dated Dec. 1, 2009, and is a very brief exchange between her and Cheryl D. Mills, who I will shortly show is one who gravely deepens the doo-doo of Hillary’s situation.
The email from Hillary to Mills has only three words in the subject line: “May I borrow.” And only four words are in the body of the email: “SEND by David Shipley?”
The email seems absolutely benign and almost worthy of deletion, right? It does until one unfolds more about the content and its recipient.
The full title of the book that Hillary requests is: “Send: Why People Email So Badly and How to Do It Better,” by David Shipley and Will Schwalbe. The book pledges to give “essential strategies to help … manage the ever-increasing number of emails you receive and improve the ones you send.”
Hillary doesn’t explain why she wanted the book, but the fact that she requested it from Mills reveals that there was a point of discussion about the book prior to the email and that it was in Mills’ presence. Mills likely recommended something in the book, otherwise Hillary wouldn’t have asked for it.
Her reason for asking Mills to bring her the book, which she did the very next day in their personal meeting, becomes readily apparent once one opens its chapter contents. It is a course of actions that reads like Hillary’s playbook to duck-n-dodge email culpability with the U.S. State Department confidential correspondence.
ABC News highlighted Hillary’s Pandora’s box by referring to Chapter Six: “The Email That Can Land You In Jail.” The chapter contains a sub-section entitled: “How to Delete Something So It Stays Deleted.”
Page 215 also offers further advice how to avoid legal traps: “Stupid (and Real) Email Phrases That Wound Up in Court.” The number one stupidity is: “DELETE THIS EMAIL!” http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/tips-deleting-emails-email-book-hillary-clinton-wanted/story?id=33046042
Shipley and Schwalbe warn: “Some people are hoarders, some are checkers. The main thing to consider is that once you do decide to delete, it’s like taking the garbage from your kitchen and putting it in your hallway. It’s still there.”
In order to really delete emails, the authors counsel that one must take added measures “to make sure that it’s not just elsewhere on the drive but has in fact been written over sixteen or twenty times and rendered undefinable.”
Is it a coincidence that Hillary’s personal server that she just handed over to the FBI was completely “wiped clean?” If you think so, I have a London Bridge to sell you in Lake Havasu City, Arizona!
Can FBI forensics retrieve the once deleted emails on her personal server? It’s possible, but it all depends upon how good of a job Hillary’s minions did at following Shipley and Schwalbe’s instructions.
Ready for another surprise? One of those email redacting minions was none other than Cheryl Mills – the recipient of her Dec. 1, 2009, email and the giver of the book, “Send: Why People Email So Badly and How to Do It Better.”
Chuck Norris provides real solutions to our county’s problems and a way to reawaken the American dream in his best-seller, “Black Belt Patriotism.”
As Hillary herself explained back in March of this year, Mills was given the task of “identifying and preserving all emails that could potentially be federal records.”
This is what deepens and darkens the email mud here and Hillary’s guilt: Cheryl D. Mills is not just Hillary’s book-reading buddy, but a long-term Clinton family adviser and lawyer who goes back to Billy’s days in the White House, where she was a deputy counsel and defended him during his 1999 impeachment trial.
The New York Post hit the nail on the head: “Mills has a long track record of hiding Clinton documents. … The job of damage control has fallen to Mills through a parade of scandals. Her lack of cooperation is legendary. In fact, she’s been officially accused of both perjury and obstruction of justice.” (Please, read Paul Sperry’s New York Post article from May, “Hillary’s Closest Adviser is Hiding the Truth of Her Emails,” in which Perry details many deceitful escapades of Mill-Clinton legacy over two decades.) http://nypost.com/2015/05/17/hillary-clintons-consigliere-covers-up-for-her-scandals/
After a stint at the University of New York in the early 2000s, Mills returned to be an adviser on Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign. She then aided Clinton’s transition to the Secretary of State Department, closely overseeing the office there as chief of staff.
In 2013, the Washington Post further described Mills as being “among the inner circle of advisers helping Clinton chart her plans for the future and could figure prominently in Clinton’s campaign should she run for president in 2016.”
Unless, of course, Mills is more helpful outside of Hillary’s campaign, like by covering up more email and document tracks or overseeing the future congressional court cases of Hillary’s Email-gate.
Perry was right in the New York Post:
If Congress really wants to get to the bottom of Hillary Clinton’s missing Benghazi and pay-to-play emails, it should call her consigliere Cheryl D. Mills to testify – under oath, and under the klieg lights.
A hearing featuring Clinton will be a wasted show trial with a lot of political grandstanding.
But Mills, who served as the former secretary of state’s chief of staff and counselor, knows where the bodies are buried.
You know the old saying, “If it look, walks, and quacks like a duck, it probably is”?
There’s also, “Don’t do the crime, if you can’t do the time.”
I hope Hillary and Mills both read Page 226 in Shipley and Schwalbe’s book, where the writers warn, “If you’re issued a subpoena, your deletion binge will only make you look guilty.”
Last, isn’t it interesting that just last Friday, Hillary made a joke at the annual Iowa Democratic Wing Ding that she was glad to be a part of the new social media service Snapchat, which offers a communication venue that instantly deletes messages?
Hillary quipped, “By the way, you may have seen that I have recently launched a Snapchat account. I love it – those messages disappear all by themselves.”
I guess Mark Twain was right, “Humor is the good natured side of a truth.”
http://www.wnd.com/2015/08/single-smoking-gun-email-that-should-bury-hillary/
—-
McCarthy: No special prosecutor needed for Hillary emails
‘Political responsibility is a more significant issue than legal culpability’
August 16, 2015 by Garth Kant
WASHINGTON – It would be better to unravel the Hillary Clinton email scandal in the court of public opinion than a court of law, according to one of the nation’s top legal and political experts, former federal prosecutor and National Review columnist Andrew McCarthy.
“Political responsibility is a more significant issue than legal culpability,” he told WND, then explained why it would not be a good idea to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate possible crimes by the woman who would be president or possible criminal complicity by the White House, Justice Department or State Department.
The case for appointing a special prosecutor to look into all of those possibilities was made in a story posted at the top of the Drudge Report Thursday in which McCarthy was quoted, “The Countless Crimes of Hillary Clinton: Special Prosecutor Needed Now,” alongside the story, “The majority of Americans support a ‘criminal investigation’ of Hillary emails.”
Andrew McCarthy
McCarthy, who appears frequently on Fox News as a political commentator and legal specialist, pointed out to WND the high hurdle a special prosecutor would face.
“Whether anyone in the Obama administration from the president on down is legally culpable for any law violations Mrs. Clinton may have committed would depend on their knowledge at the time of the acts in question and whether they had a duty to take action to see that the law was followed.”
But he also pointed out that criminal culpability wasn’t necessarily the biggest issue, especially for the man at the top, President Obama.
“As a matter of political accountability, however, the president is responsible for all acts committed by executive branch officials, and Justice Department officials are responsible to investigate serious potential law violations that come to their attention, particularly those involving government officials.”
“If they do not perform their duties, it does not necessarily mean they can be prosecuted, but it raises a profound question about their fitness for those duties,” said McCarthy, zeroing in on what he saw as the heart of the matter.
The former chief assistant U.S. attorney in New York, and adviser to the deputy secretary of defense, also cited to WND the difficulty in having a special prosecutor investigate this, or any, administration.
“Congress has no power to appoint a special prosecutor. Prosecution is an executive responsibility, and the framers did not want executive and legislative powers exercised by the same set of hands. Any special prosecutor would have to answer to the president and, probably, the attorney general.”
McCarthy’s quote in the story calling for a special prosecutor was not on that subject but to support the contention Clinton violated the Espionage Act. (In two pieces for National Review, McCarthy made the case that the real issue was whether Clinton used her private email to transmit any classified information, regardless of whether the documents were actually marked classified.)
In fact, on May 22 he wrote an argument against using a special prosecutor to investigate the IRS, and by referring the story to WND, clearly implied the same line of reasoning held with respect to the Clinton email scandal.
His contention was the appointment of a special prosecutor “would make the investigation disappear from public view, for months if not years,” and what was really needed was “an investigation designed to shine the light of day on what actually happened.”
“Public disclosure should be the goal here,” wrote McCarthy.
Former Secretary of State and Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton
“There will be plenty of time later to prosecute wrongdoers,” he counseled. “The statute of limitations on most federal crimes is five years.”
McCarthy asserted that “the moment a prosecutor — special or otherwise — takes over, the public flow of information stops. All witnesses will claim that the pendency of a criminal investigation means they cannot discuss the matter ‘on advice of counsel.’ They will cease cooperating with congressional investigators.
“The prosecutor will claim that grand-jury secrecy rules bar comment about the expansive investigation (a claim the government routinely makes, even though the rules actually bar comment only by the prosecutor, investigative agents, and grand jurors — not the witnesses). Investigative secrecy is the prosecutor’s stock in trade, for good reasons. It is how you build an airtight case.”
Another problem: “[S]pecial counsels are not independent of the executive branch. They still answer to the attorney general and, ultimately, the president.”
Additionally, the appointment of a special counsel would not necessarily be an effective way to investigate wrongdoing within the administration.
“A special counsel chosen by (then-)Attorney General Eric Holder and President Obama would be no different. It would not get us to accountability; it would be a severe impediment to accountability.”
He concluded, “The conduct of criminal investigations is, unquestionably, a purely executive power. Consequently, there cannot be any legitimate federal exercise of prosecutorial authority independent of the executive branch.”
Follow Garth Kant @DCgarth
http://www.wnd.com/2015/08/mccarthy-no-special-prosecutor-needed-for-hillary-emails/
—-
Author: Obama fueling Hillary’s campaign scandals
Says White House doesn’t want her to succeed president
August 16, 2015 Jerome R. Corsi
NEW YORK – As the scandals arising from her use of a private email account and her foundation’s receipt of foreign donations during her service as secretary of state evolve from allegation to investigation, Hillary Clinton’s public defense of her actions aren’t holding up, threatening her once “inevitable” path to the Democratic Party presidential nomination in 2016.
Clinton claimed in March, for example, that her private email account was not used for disseminating classified material, but an inspector general last week said he found two “Top Secret” emails in a random sample of the 30,000 she gave to the State Department for review.
And although she was told explicitly not to use her office of secretary of state to raise money for the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation, private investigations continue to turn up numerous examples of quid pro quo transactions and financial irregularities that appear to have illegally profited the Clintons.
Hillary Clinton
While Hillary Clinton is blaming the email scandal threatening her campaign on the likes of “vast-right wing conspiracy” stalwart Judicial Watch, a longtime Clinton observer sees White House fingerprints on it.
Author Ed Klein, former foreign editor of Newsweek and former editor-in-chief of the New York Times Magazine, told WND on Friday “the Obama White House, for both ideological and personal reasons, does not want to see Hillary Clinton succeed Barack Obama as president.”
Peter Schweizer’s “Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich” is available at the WND Superstore!
Klein, the author of “Blood Feud: The Obamas vs. the Clintons,” said chief White House adviser Valerie Jarrett, whom he calls Obama’s “consigliere,” “has been a prime source of press leaks about Hillary’s email scandal.”
“The Obama White House has no intention of trying to thwart the FBI’s investigation,” Klein told WND.
The probe, he noted, is now in the hands of FBI Director James Comey.
Klein described Comey as “an honest, moral and upright civil servant, who will follow the leads wherever they lead.”
The author pointed out the Obama White House has looked at several possible alternatives to Clinton, with Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley as the most prominent.
“At this point, Barack Obama and Valerie Jarrett believe their best bet is Joe Biden, and they are doing whatever they can to convince Joe to throw his hat into the ring,” Klein said of the vice president.
In “Blood Feud,” Klein points to another anti-Hillary suspect, former White House National Security Adviser John Brennan, currently heading the CIA. Klein said Brennan joined Jarrett and Obama political adviser David Axelrod to run White House foreign policy, “calling all the shots” to the exclusion of Clinton and the State Department.
If Brennan and the CIA, indeed, conspired with the White House to end Clinton’s political career, she might be justifiably concerned that the administration’s national security apparatus, including the vast eavesdropping resources of the NSA, could have its own copies of her emails and could leak them at strategic moments.
Klein’s theory meshes with former Clinton adviser Dick Morris’s belief that the White House was behind the “draft Biden” movement that would pit the vice president against Clinton as a more credible option to advance Obama’s agenda.
“You can only have one candidate out there saying everything Obama’s doing is right … I’ll just continue what Obama’s doing,” Morris said. “You can’t have two candidates saying that, because the other one won’t get covered, and Biden lives on campus. These are his programs as well as Obama’s.”
Nothing to see here
Clinton continues to maintain there was no impropriety in her decision to use a personal email server to conduct the highly sensitive business of secretary of state.
But from the outset of the scandal in the spring, contrary information has surfaced that has only fueled the fire.
For one, Fox News obtained in March an internal State Department cable to Diplomatic and Consular Staff in 2011 in which Clinton herself told State Department staff, for security reasons, not to use personal email. She made it clear that to “avoid conducting official Department from your personal emails,” employees should not “auto-forward Department emails to personal email accounts which is prohibited by Department policy.”
When she finally decided to face media, March 10, choosing the United Nations headquarters in New York as the venue, she said nobody should be worried about any possible breaches of security.
“I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email; there is no classified material,” she declared.
She further hedged her response at a July 25 campaign event in Iowa, protecting herself in the event that material she email later became classified.
“I am confident that I never sent nor received any information that was classified at the time it was sent and received,” she declared.
But in a letter to Congress last week, Charles McCullough, III, inspector general of the Intelligence Community, wrote that his “classification officials reviewed two additional emails and judged that they contained classified State Department information when originated.”
The revelation prompted the FBI to take possession of Clinton’s email server Wednesday.
Human Abedin and Hillary Clinton
However, an attorney for the Denver-based company that has managed Clinton’s private email account since 2013, Platte River Networks, told Bloomberg News Thursday that the email server turned over to the FBI “is blank and does not contain any useful data.” Nevertheless, Bloomberg said the FBI is seeking to determine whether the data might have been backed up on another machine.
Clinton also told reporters in March that when she emailed government colleagues, they all had government email addresses. But top aides Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills were both found to have had personal email accounts on Clinton’s server, which they used to conduct State Department business.
WND has reported extensively on Abedin’s Muslim Brotherhood family background and political affiliations, raising the question of how she might have influenced Middle East policy.
Hillary Clinton also said that among the emails on her personal server were exchanges with her husband. But Bill Clinton spokesman Matt McKenna said the former president has sent “a grand total of two emails during his entire life,” the Washington Examiner reported in March
Amid mounting pressure, Clinton turned over paper copies of 30,490 emails she said were related to government business. She said she deleted another 31,830 messages she deemed to be personal, including yoga routines and condolence messages. But her critics question whether she should be the one to make that determination.
The American public clearly shares that concern and others.
A Monmouth University Poll released Wednesday found that 52 percent of Americans say her emails should be subject to a criminal investigation for the potential release of classified material, the Washington Times reported.
U.S. officials first found classified information among the emails as early as last May, the McClatchy news service reported.
What’s in the emails?
While Clinton’s use of a private email account as secretary of state poses criminal and political consequences, the contents of the messages also could threaten her presidential ambitions.
The House Select Committee investigating the Obama administration’s role in the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on the U.S. special mission in Benghazi, Libya, has been continually rebuffed in its effort to obtain relevant emails from Clinton and the State Department.
Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C.
Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., the chairman of the Benghazi House Select Committee, said Wednesday in an interview on the Fox News Channel’s “America’s Newsroom” that Clinton’s “unique email arrangement is interfering with our ability of finding out what happened to the four Americans killed in Benghazi.”
“She wanted to control access to the public record and she almost got away with it,” Gowdy said.
WND has reported State Department emails released through a lawsuit by Judicial Watch show Clinton knew while the Benghazi attack was under way that it was being carried out by Islamic terrorists. Clinton and the Obama administration, nevertheless, contended protestors angry over an obscure anti-Muslim movie, not terrorists, were responsible for the attack that resulted in the deaths of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans.
McClatchy reported the hiring of Platte River Networks to manage Clinton’s State Department private emails coincided with the discovery that an email account for Clinton’s longtime private consultant Sidney Blumenthal had been hacked by a Romanian national Marcel Lazar Lehel, known as Guccifer.
As WND reported in May, Clinton’s private emails to Blumenthal reveal extensive discussions about Benghazi.
More recently, WND has reported the allegation that Clinton’s State Department tried to ship weapons to Libya via Qatar in 2011 in violation of a U.N. Security Council resolution. The allegation appears to be a central argument in the defense of arms dealer Marc Turi, who has been charged with filing false applications to ship weapons to Qatar, knowing the weapons would be diverted to Libya.
Clinton cash
Author Peter Schweizer, in his book “Clinton Cash,” has provided evidence indicating foreign contributions to the Clinton Foundation resulted in political concessions engineered by Hillary Clinton’s State Department.
Schweizer has found a pattern of “shady” big-dollar donors seeking political favor while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state.
Russian President Vladimir Putin
They include reclusive Swedish mining investor Lukas Lundin, who committed $100 million to the Clinton Foundation through a charity called Lundin for Africa. In his book, Schweizer wrote that Lundin is “the head of a sprawling enterprise that cuts deals with African warlords and dictators to gain access to valuable minerals and oil.”
Another character is Frank Guistra, a “penny-stock speculator” who leveraged contributions to the Clinton Foundation to get Bill Clinton’s help winning over Nursultan Nazarbayev, the ruler of Kazakhstan, who Schweizer describes as “a backwater billionaire dictator with a treacherous human rights record.” The deal ended with Guistra getting access to immense uranium deposits from Kazakhstan’s estimated $5 trillion of natural resources.
Guistra developed a company named Uranium One. It took Secretary Clinton’s involvement to persuade the U.S. Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CIFUS) to allow the Russian State Nuclear Agency Rosatom to buy a controlling interest in Uranium One. Consequently, one-half of all U.S. uranium production wound up in the effective control of the Vladimir Putin’s Russian government.
“You find this pattern repeated,” Schweizer told WND, “where people who operate these political cultures largely driven by bribery are making large payments to the Clintons.
In addition, WND has reported exclusively, beginning in April, Wall Street financial analyst Charles Ortel’s separate, extensive investigation of the foundation’s financial records, which has led him to conclude the Clintons have diverted tens millions of dollars donated for charitable purposes to the personal enrichment of themselves and their close associates.
WND further reported that before Hillary Clinton completed her first year as Obama’s secretary of state in 2010, $17 million went missing from Clinton Foundation financial reports, according to Ortel’s probe.
WND reported May 14 Ortel has concluded that while Hillary Clinton was appointed to the board of directors of the Clinton Foundation in 2013, after she had resigned as secretary of state, she is complicit in what he has described as systematic financial fraud warranting a criminal investigation.
WND reported May 13 that Ortel found the Clinton Foundation’s explanation for why it was divided into three, legally separate tax-exempt organizations to be “misleading and false.” As WND reported May 12, based on Ortel’s findings, a prominent lawyer and a top government watchdog in the nation’s capital are calling for the Clinton Foundation to be shut down. In his first report, Ortel found what he characterizes as an elaborate system devised by the Clintons to enrich themselves through schemes such as skimming tens of millions of dollars from U.N. levies imposed on airline travelers.
Ortel’s concerns about the Clinton Foundation directors arise from what he believes are false and misleading public disclosures. WND reported Ortel’s conclusion that the Clinton Foundation could “Enron” a major accounting firm, Price waterhouseCoopers, his finding that no one verified whether or not the foundation was a tax-exempt charity and his evidence that PWC allowed the foundation to “skim millions.”
Read WND’s recounting of 22 of Hillary Clinton’s biggest scandals, stretching from Whitewater, Travelgate, Chinagate, Filegate, Pardongate and many others in the 1990s to the current email, Clinton Foundation and Benghazi probes. http://www.wnd.com/2015/05/here-they-are-hillarys-22-biggest-scandals-ever/
http://www.wnd.com/2015/08/famous-author-obama-fueling-hillarys-campaign-scandals/
—-
Number of Hillary Clinton’s emails flagged for classified data grows to 60 as review continues
August 16, 2015 By John Solomon – The Washington Times
While media coverage has focused on a half-dozen of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s personal emails containing sensitive intelligence, the total number of her private emails identified by an ongoing State Department review as having contained classified data has ballooned to 60, officials told The Washington Times.
That figure is current through the end of July and is likely to grow as officials wade through a total of 30,000 work-related emails that passed through her personal email server, officials said. The process is expected to take months.
The 60 emails are among those that have been reviewed and cleared for release under the Freedom of Information Act as part of a open-records lawsuit. Some of the emails have multiple redactions for classified information.
Among the first 60 flagged emails, nearly all contained classified secrets at the lowest level of “confidential” and one contained information at the intermediate level of “secret,” officials told the Times.
Those 60 emails do not include two emails identified in recent days by Intelligence Community Inspector General I. Charles McCullough III as containing “top-secret” information possibly derived from Pentagon satellites, drones or intercepts, which is some of the nation’s most sensitive secrets.
State officials and the intelligence community are working to resolve questions about those and other emails with possible classified information, a process that isn’t likely to be completed until January.
That will be right around the time Mrs. Clinton is slated to face voters in the Iowa caucuses in her bid for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination.
As the number of suspect emails grows and the classification review continues, it is clear that predictions contained in a notification Mr. McCullough sent Congress this summer is likely to hold true: Mrs. Clinton’s personal emails likely contained hundreds of disclosures of classified information.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/aug/16/number-of-hillary-clintons-emails-flagged-for-clas/
Tagged: abortion, al-Qaida, “Muslim Mafia, benghazi, Caliphate, Chemical Weapons, Christian, collapse of America, Constitution, dictator, Ebola, foreclosure, Hamas, immigration, IRS, ISIS, Islam, Islamist, Israel, jihad, Muslim Brotherhood, Nazi, NSA, Obama, obamacare, radical Islam, rights, Second Amendment, Syria, Tea Party, Tyrannical Government, voter fraud, White House