Hillary Clinton used private email for her State Dept. business. *All* of it. Updated: More private accounts?

March 3, 2015

800px-Hillary_Clinton_official_Secretary_of_State_portrait_crop

Remember, peasants, the rules are for you to follow. For Our Betters In Washington (all bow), they’re only suggestions:

Hillary Rodham Clinton exclusively used a personal email account to conduct government business as secretary of state, State Department officials said, and may have violated federal requirements that officials’ correspondence be retained as part of the agency’s record.

Mrs. Clinton did not have a government email address during her four-year tenure at the State Department. Her aides took no actions to have her personal emails preserved on department servers at the time, as required by the Federal Records Act.

It was only two months ago, in response to a new State Department effort to comply with federal record-keeping practices, that Mrs. Clinton’s advisers reviewed tens of thousands of pages of her personal emails and decided which ones to turn over to the State Department. All told, 55,000 pages of emails were given to the department. Mrs. Clinton stepped down from the secretary’s post in early 2013.

I want you to consider that bold portion carefully: the Secretary of State was conducting all her official correspondence, including classified material (remember: “exclusively”), on a private email account. That would include not only correspondence with her aides and other departmental and government figures, but exchanges with foreign governments — governments in Moscow, Beijing, Jerusalem, Cairo, Berlin, London, Tokyo, Ouagadougou… you name it. If this article is correct, it was all on a private email system, which is notoriously insecure.

And yet it was her aides, no doubt including consigliere Cheryl Mills, who decided what would be turned over to State. (Did they have a shredding party?)

I’d say the arrogance is astonishing, but this is the Clintons we’re talking about. “Entitlement” is emblazoned on their family crest.

And it’s not as if Lady Macbeth or anyone she worked with didn’t know about these regulations; they’d be part of every orientation and, if you’re too important to attend the ethics orientation, you’d have an aide who knew the rules. So, she had to have known and thus knowing violated the FRA.

On top of that, anyone she corresponded with knew. Her aides, State employees, officers of other departments, the White House… Surely they noticed “clintonemail.com” in the send line? At least some among them had more brains than a turnip and realized she was using an insecure service.

Did no one say anything to her?

Don’t be silly.

Did foreign intelligence services or rogue hackers break into this account?

I’d be shocked if they hadn’t. And I hope to God Clinton was at least using high-grade encryption.

Oh, and I bet you can guess what the elephant in the living room is, can’t you? One word: Benghazi

As Ed Morrissey at Hot Air reminds us, it was odd that the investigating committees looking into the Benghazi massacre found so little in her departmental correspondence. Now we know why — it was all in a private account that was hidden from Congress. From the NYT article, again:

The existence of Mrs. Clinton’s personal email account was discovered by a House committee investigating the attack on the American Consulate in Benghazi as it sought correspondence between Mrs. Clinton and her aides about the attack.

Two weeks ago, the State Department, after reviewing Mrs. Clinton’s emails, provided the committee with about 300 emails — amounting to roughly 900 pages — about the Benghazi attacks.

Mrs. Clinton and the committee declined to comment on the contents of the emails or whether they will be made public.

The State Department, Ms. Psaki said, “has been proactively and consistently engaged in responding to the committee’s many requests in a timely manner, providing more than 40,000 pages of documents, scheduling more than 20 transcribed interviews and participating in several briefings and each of the committee’s hearings.”

Again, note the portion in bold. State turned over those emails to the committee (presumably Rep. Gowdy’s Select Committee) two weeks ago, but Clinton’s huscarls decided what State would get two months ago.

Oh, yeah. Sure. They included everything and anything related to Benghazi and Libya. You betcha.

One point to keep in mind: At least for emails to other government employees, those who received La Clintona’s messages should still have them, assuming they also weren’t on private accounts that have since been scrubbed. That means the Select Committee has a lot of work ahead of it to identify those recipients and subpoena copies of those mails. Have fun, Chairman Gowdy!

A last consideration: This has been a bad sennight or so for the Clintons. Revelations about the bribes questionable donations to the Clinton Foundation while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State, now this news about her secret email account and continuing speculations about any other pants shoes to drop about Bill’s relationship with billionaire pedophile Jeffrey Epstein — all these bear on her judgement, competence, and honesty, her qualifications to be President.

And all this has come out in such succession that one has to wonder if someone with a trove of embarrassing information who also dislikes the Clintons hasn’t decided to drop dime after dime on her to sympathetic press outlets, MSM organs that would like to see someone else, someone more pure in her progressivism, as the Democratic nominee.

Who needs House of Cards when you have the Clinton’s providing the drama and intrigue?

PS: And before someone can say “the Bush people did it, too!”, sure, though some of the “scandals,” such as the US Attorney firings, were ginned-up nothing-burgers. However, none of these figures did their government business wholly on private accounts and none sent classified information over those accounts, as Hillary certainly had to have, since she used this account “exclusively.”

UPDATE: Per Congressman Gowdy, it appears that Hillary Clinton had more than one personal account.


Two reasons Hillary Clinton will not be president

March 1, 2015

800px-Hillary_Clinton_official_Secretary_of_State_portrait_crop

Well, three if you count her overall incompetence for any office higher than “Bill’s wife,” or four if one recalls that she is a terrible retail politician. Five, even, given that no one really likes her. Six –count’em, six!!– if Bill rode anything more than Jeffrey Epstein‘s plane.

But let’s just stick with two concrete reasons.

Qualifications

Influence

First, how do you think it looks that, while she was Secretary of State, her family foundation took money from foreign governments?

The Clinton Foundation accepted millions of dollars from seven foreign governments during Hillary Rodham Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state, including one donation that violated its ethics agreement with the Obama administration, foundation officials disclosed Wednesday.

Most of the contributions were possible because of exceptions written into the foundation’s 2008 agreement, which included limits on foreign-government donations.

The agreement, reached before Clinton’s nomination amid concerns that countries could use foundation donations to gain favor with a Clinton-led State Department, allowed governments that had previously donated money to continue making contributions at similar levels.

The new disclosures, provided in response to questions from The Washington Post, make clear that the 2008 agreement did not prohibit foreign countries with interests before the U.S. government from giving money to the charity closely linked to the secretary of state.

In one instance, foundation officials acknowledged they should have sought approval in 2010 from the State Department ethics office, as required by the agreement for new government donors, before accepting a $500,000 donation from the Algerian government.

The money was given to assist with earthquake relief in Haiti, the foundation said. At the time, Algeria, which has sought a closer relationship with Washington, was spending heavily to lobby the State Department on human rights issues.

Nice. They were only giving “at the same levels” at which they gave before she was Secretary of State, so, really, it’s no biggie.

If, oh, I don’t know, the government of Freedonia was giving a million a year before and a million a year after, I’d call that pretty significant, regardless. Something along the lines of “We could really use help with this border dispute and, oh, did you know we just our sentcheck to the Clinton foundation? Just FYI, of course.” Algeria donated a half-million while it was trying to influence State’s position on Algeria’s (rotten) record on human rights.

Think about it: the Secretary of State is the nation’s top diplomat, executing the president’s foreign policy in pursuit of the nation’s interests. (1) It is at a minimum a clear and huge conflict of interest for her to be overseeing our relations with states that have also been slipping checks to her family foundation.

If it were anyone else, the MSM would be screaming “bribery.”

The Post article is a good one, well worth your time. They’re to be commended for running it, and it should be disqualifying on its own, but you can bet this is only the tip of the iceberg where the Clintons and money are concerned.

American Blood, US Consulate, Benghazi

American Blood, US Consulate, Benghazi

But that’s not even the biggest iceberg heading for the S.S. Hillary the Inevitable. The footsteps of accountability for the Benghazi massacre are drawing ever closer:

From the very first moments of the terrorist attack on the U.S. compound in Benghazi on September 11, 2012, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her top aides were advised that the compound was under a terrorist attack. In fact, less than two hours into the attack, they were told that the al-Qaeda affiliate in Libya, Ansar al-Sharia, had claimed responsibility.

(…)

At 4:07 p.m., just minutes after the terrorist attack began, Cheryl Mills, Secretary Clinton’s chief-of-staff, and Joseph McManus, Mrs. Clinton’s executive assistant, received an e-mail from the State Department’s operations center (forwarded to her by Maria Sand, a special assistant to Secretary Clinton). It contained a report from the State Department’s regional security officer (RSO), entitled “U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi is Under Attack.” The e-mail explained that approximately 20 armed people had fired shots at the diplomatic mission, that explosions had been heard as well, and that Ambassador Stevens was believed to be in the compound with at least four other State Department officials.

(…)

At 6:06 p.m., another e-mail that went to top State Department officials explained that the local al-Qaeda affiliate had claimed responsibility for the attack:

Ansar al-Sharia Claims Responsibility for Benghazi Attack (SBU): “(SBU) Embassy Tripoli reports the group claimed responsibility on Facebook and Twitter and call for an attack on Embassy Tripoli”

Despite this evidence that her top staffers were informed from the start that a terrorist attack was underway and that an al-Qaeda-affiliated terrorist group had claimed credit for it, Secretary Clinton issued an official statement claiming the assault may have been in “response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet.”

While this information was recovered in a document trove obtained by Judicial Watch via FOIA lawsuit, it isn’t the first time we’ve heard that Clinton’s upper echelon of aides knew what was really happening that night. In particular, Cheryl Mills is a very useful minion. She and Clinton are very close, and it is inconceivable that Hillary, her boss, never knew.

And yet from that very night, Hillary insisted that an obscure anti-Islam video was to blame, including lying to the victim’s families to their faces at the ceremony for the return of their remains.

Forget theories about arms shipments to Syrian rebels and whatnot. Clinton as Secretary of State was directly responsible for the creation of the facility in Benghazi and the security of US personnel in Libya. The Libya war was her baby. The assessment of the situation in Libya used to justify intervention was hers. Everything, from the war to the ignored warnings regarding the threat in Benghazi to the final attack that lead to the deaths of four Americans and the wounding of many others. All of this bears on her judgement and competence for high office.

But the question of what she knew and when she knew it and what she did after she knew it is crucial to the question of her integrity, honor, and honesty. (2)

Can you see why Lady Macbeth would want us to ask “What difference does it make?”

Neither of these scandals is going away anytime soon. Benghazi has hung around like an unwelcome guest at her coronation party, occasionally coughing to let everyone know it’s still there. The donor scandal is only just beginning. Her presidential aspirations might survive one, but not both. One of these will derail her campaign, perhaps sooner than we think.

RELATED: At Legal Insurrection, some word association on Hillary, donations, and Benghazi. Jonah Goldberg wants to know how it is that Judicial Watch can get these documents, but Congress can’t. At Power Line, John Hinderaker wonders if the Clintons’ greed will be their undoing. I’d say “yes.”

Footnote:
(1) Yeah, I know. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton protecting US interests. Bear with me.
(2) I know, I know. A Clinton. That should answer the question right there.


The State Department’s Refugee Program Shouldn’t be a Terrorist-Funding Welfare Scam

February 26, 2015

Phineas Fahrquar:

“Minnesota, the France of America.” Ouch!

Originally posted on International Liberty:

While immigration is a very contentious issue for the politicians in Washington, there’s actually some level of agreement among people in the real world.

Almost everybody agrees that it would be foolish and short-sighted not to allow some immigration, particularly from young, educated people with valuable skills.

Similarly, there is widespread agreement that you can’t have completely open borders, particularly for those who are unlikely to be net contributors to the economy.

So the real debate (and this is where there is a lot of room for disagreement) is who gets to come to America and under what conditions.

I don’t raise this issue because I have any wise words – much less proposed solutions – on the overall issue of immigration.

Instead, let’s look at the profoundly perverse way that the federal government is using the refugee program to expand the problem of dependency.

Here are some excerpts from

View original 1,064 more words


Ben Sasse (R-NE) on the Iran negotiations: the administration is “explicitly tolerating a renegade nuclear program”

February 25, 2015

The junior senator from Nebraska nails it in this video. Unlike our administration, he seems to have a clear understanding of both the ramifications of Iran obtaining nuclear weapons and the Obama administration’s feckless, delusional approach. Well worth watching:

via Fred Fleitz, who writes:

Obama officials defend their approach to the nuclear talks because they claim a final deal will be subject to robust verification by IAEA inspectors. This argument is hard to take seriously since Iran has never fully cooperated with the IAEA and has specifically refused to cooperated with IAEA inspectors during the talks and cheated on the interim agreement which set up the talks.Moreover, yesterday’s revelations (if they are true) by the NCRI, an Iranian dissident group, that Iran has been operating a secret facility where it has been developing advanced uranium centrifuges and may be enriching uranium adds to the suspicion that Tehran cannot be trusted with any dual-use nuclear technology.

It’s a shame Senator Sasse isn’t leading the negotiations, rather the buffoonish John Kerry.


For the good of the nation, DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson should resign

February 19, 2015
Jeh Johnson

Jeh Johnson

It’s been tough to stomach the vacuous platitudes and the detached-from-all-reality prescriptions being offered at the White House’s three-day “summit” on “Countering Violent Extremism,” which is their latest laughable response to the threat from Islamic terrorism and jihad — though they’ll never use those words in a connected sense. It’s always an amorphous “violent extremism,” as if we should be just as worried about the threat from radical Presbyterians as much as the danger posed by Muslims waging jihad fi sabil Allah.

First there was the President’s own op-ed in the Los Angeles Times, in which, among other fatuities, he tells us we must deal with “legitimate grievances” that lead to “violent extremism,” perhaps meaning a Harf-ite jobs-for-jihadis program. I’m sure the fighters flocking to ISIS to burn people alive and buy sex slaves would lay down their arms if they only had a 9-5 with two weeks off.

Then there was Secretary of State Kerry’s blather about violent extremism and the need for unity and an “action agenda.” If anyone can find any intellectual substance behind his words, you’re a far better detective than I.

But those insults to our intelligence can be shrugged off as more of the mush that masquerades as a genuine foreign and national security policy in the administration. We’ve heard it all before, though it’s harder to take in such concentrated doses.

What can’t be shrugged off, however is a slanderous insult against the American people, especially when offered by the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. Speaking at the CVE summit, Secretary Jeh Johnson said:

[W]e in the administration and the government should give voice to the plight of Muslims living in this country and the discrimination that they face. And so I personally have committed to speak out about the situation that very often people in the Muslim community in this country face.

Excuse me? What “plight?” Considering the horror visited upon America on September 11th, 2001, Muslims in the US have been treated with remarkable restraint and even kindness, as many people went out of their way to show they weren’t holding them to blame for the massacre their co-religionists wrought. In fact, in the most recent figures available, the FBI reports that there are more than three-times as many hate-crimes against Jews as against Muslims.  (1)

Will Secretary Johnson “give voice” to the tragic plight of Jews in America, too?

Later in the same article, Power Line’s John Hinderaker writes:

This is simply insane. Does the Obama administration think that pleading guilty–falsely–to discriminating against Muslims is somehow going to pacify ISIS, al Qaeda, Hezbollah and the rest? And what, exactly, is the “plight” of American Muslims? How does it compare with the plight of Muslims who live in Syria, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Libya and elsewhere in the Islamic world?

Not to mention the plight of Christians and Jews who live in those places, to the extent there are any left. A funny thing about that: if, as Johnson assures us, “the Islamic faith is one about peace and brotherhood,” what, exactly, happened to all those Christians and Jews? The administration is delusional, but one constant, no matter the context, is its reflexive instinct to condemn America.

Like I said, it’s one thing for Obama and Kerry to spew nonsense; perhaps I’ve become jaded to their drivel, but Secretary Johnson is specifically charged with the protection of Americans in the American homeland. For him to abase himself before the conference attendees and lend credence to the Islamic victim narrative with false accusations against his own people is beyond excuse and renders him unfit for his office.

I’d say he should do the decent thing and resign, but I’ve long stopped expecting decency from the typical Obama appointee.

Footnote:
(1) The recent murders of three Muslims in North Carolina, which apologists from the president down to CAIR were quick to imply were rooted in “Islamophobia,” appear instead to have been the horrifying result of a dispute over parking. But even if they had been motivated by religion, they would have been among the strikingly few examples of anti-Islamic violence in the US.


Obama, the Un-War President

February 13, 2015

Phineas Fahrquar:

I’m kinder to Mr. Bush than Mr. Schindler is, but what he says about President Obama below is on-the-mark. If the Bush administration was too inclined to use force , a position I have some disagreements with, the Obama administration is almost mindbogglingly unwilling to recognize or admit to situations when force, or at least the credible threat of force, is the rational answer. Well-worth reading.

Originally posted on The XX Committee:

It’s been a tough week for anyone seeking to defend President Obama’s record, particularly in foreign policy, against rising accusations of fecklessness. Seven days ago, the White House unveiled its overdue National Security Strategy, five years after its last edition, to understated fanfare, with National Security Adviser Susan Rice mostly complaining that nobody understands how great things are going globally — minor incidents like the rise of the Islamic State and the aggressive war waged by Russia against Ukraine notwithstanding — and that national security is, you know, a tough job.

The mantra attached to the new NSS is Strategic Patience, which was met with guffaws, since it seems to be more a rationalization of Obama’s (in)actions over the last six years than any bona fide strategy. Mostly, it appears to be “don’t do stupid shit,” the administration previous foreign policy mantra, dressed up in grad school IR cliches.

To…

View original 1,358 more words


Marines: No weapons surrendered to Houthis during #Yemen evacuation UPDATE: Retired Marines angry

February 12, 2015

Marine Corp emblem

“News” was flashing around the Internet yesterday that the Marines had surrendered their weapons to the Iranian-allied Houthis rebels who have seized control of Yemen, some saying it was on the orders of President Obama and Secretary Kerry, which would have been a humiliation for them and the United States.

The Corps is denying that happened:

“The Marine Security Force left the American embassy in Yemen for the movement to the airfield as part of the “ordered departure” with only personal weapons. All crew served weapons were destroyed at the embassy prior to movement. None of them were ‘handed over’ in any way to anyone. The destruction of weapons at the embassy and the airport was carried out in accordance with an approved destruction plan.

“Upon arrival at the airfield, all personal weapons were rendered inoperable in accordance with advance planning. Specifically, each bolt was removed from its weapons body and rendered inoperable by smashing with sledgehammers. The weapons bodies, minus the bolts, were then separately smashed with sledgehammers. All of these destroyed components were left at the airport — and components were scattered; no usable weapon was taken from any Marine at Sana’a airport.”

The weapons were destroyed because the Marines were leaving on a commercial flight.

UPDATE: Similar to what a commenter said below, retired Marines are finding it unbelievable, maddening even, that the Marines in Yemen were forced to destroy their personal weapons:

Some retired Marines took to social media and websites to express frustration with what they described as a “blatant blunder” of evacuation procedures.

“Whether a commercial flight or military flight, either way it does not add up,” said Yinon Weiss, a former U.S. Marine and the CEO of RallyPoint, a military community website. “I cannot think of any other time in recent U.S. history that any service member had to destroy their own personal weapons.”

To Mr. Weiss, the peculiar act indicates that the Marines were unwitting participants in “a hasty evacuation” and “under duress.”

“The fact that this happened indicates to me that something went terribly wrong,” he said.

Other former Marines took to his web site to complain.

“I guarantee every single one of those Marines was pissed off and swearing with every swing of those hammers,” one commenter said. “Chartered civilian airline or not, we traveled with weapons without issue.”


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 14,592 other followers