Tag Archives: Washington Times

The “scorched earth meltdown” of Democrats continues…

Just when you think you’ve seen the ultimate meltdown from a Democrat, there’s always more. Their ‘terrorist’ and ‘ISIS’ vitriol toward those who rejected them gets uglier and uglier. This frenzy to cast fellow Americans as dangerous terrorists because you disagree with them politically is beyond any normal or acceptable political discourse.

 

The hearing for Supreme Court Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh was an utter debacle for the Democrats. However, it did provide an opportunity for reassessing their view of the world and their attitude about the American people. The Democrats clearly chose not to reassess anything and are now doubling down on hate.

The new narrative from Democrats and their enablers is the insane insistence that President Donald Trump is responsible for the horrible Pittsburgh synagogue massacre. Democrats are now showing us they are truly desperate people who seek to use every human crisis as a political opportunity.

Mr. Trump is a politician and has terrific people surrounding him. He has shown us for over two years now that he can handle the slings and arrows of the dying Democrat establishment. But the more troubling and sinister messaging has emerged against voters who chose freely in 2016 not to support the status quo any longer.

In the aftermath of the synagogue massacre, two people fanatically opposed to the president have gone on national television and compared the president and his voters, in one case, to the Islamic State terrorist group (also known as ISIS) and, in the other, accused the president and his supporters of having “blood on their hands.”

On Monday at CNN, just two days after the synagogue horror, GQ columnist Julia Ioffe made headlines. During a debate segment she said, “I think this president, one of the things that he really launched his presidential run on is talking about Islamic radicalization. And this president has radicalized so many more people than ISIS ever did.”

David Urban, a Trump supporter and another guest on the panel, confronted her on-air for the remark. After Jake Tapper declined to push back on the claim, Ms. Ioffe doubled-down on comparing supporters of the president to the blood-thirsty terrorists, “ISIS had like 10,000 members. I think the president has far more supporters who espouse an equally hateful ideology,” Ms. Ioffe retorted.

In the aftermath, outrage at the remark grew, and Ms. Ioffe apologized in a non-apology sort of way by explaining it was “hyperbole” fueled by our “emotional and painful time.”

Newsflash for Ms. Ioffe: That massacre was and is emotional and painful for all of us. This was not a poor choice of words, a mistake we all can make. This was an accusation, which she reinforced even after being confronted about it in real time.

Within two days of the mass murder, Steve Schmidt, chairman of the John McCain 2008 campaign and himself a hater of Mr. Trump, went on MSNBC to discuss the massacre, but instead used the horror to unleash a screed against those whom he despises. He declared the president and others “had blood on their hands.” Without any pushback from host Chris Hayes, he said Counselor to the President Kellyanne Conway and “the vile president that she serves, abetted by Mark Levin and Rush Limbaugh and Breitbart and NewBusters and Judicial Watch and all the rest of them, have blood on their hands. For the incitements that they have made that have triggered and radicalized these crazy people. It is deliberate …”

This frenzy to cast fellow Americans as dangerous terrorists because you disagree with them politically is beyond any normal or acceptable political discourse. It’s one thing to target a direct political opponent with rhetoric that is unseemly. But here we have the failing establishment, both Democrats and in some cases Republicans, choosing to malign actual voters in the week leading up to an election.

Hillary Clinton’s declaration that the president’s supporters were “deplorable” and “not American” was the moment the losers in 2016 decided a scorched earth campaign to punish those who did not comply would be their new strategy.

It is now apparent Rep. Maxine Waters of California was not a rogue congresswoman calling for the harassment of Republicans; she was simply carrying forward the official Democratic torch.  What would possess the Democrats to think that attacking the American people would be their salvation? We may have received a clue as to their expectations when Mrs. Clinton said that the instability and incivility would stop when Democrats “won again.”

In 2016, the American public saw through the attempts to gaslight them into believing things that aren’t true. One of those false assertions is how Democrats care about the American people and are champions on the issues we care about.

Their latest accusations, attitude, and lack of any coherent position on policy for this country, proves not just the chaotic incompetence now destroying that side of the aisle, but makes clear their actual malevolence toward American citizens. We are the ones who fired them, therefore we are the ones they are determined to punish.

When the midterms wrap up Democrats are going to discover that we are not ISIS, or Nazis, or racists, or terrorists. We are Americans. We are moms and dads, brothers and sisters, sons and daughters, husbands and wives, and best friends. We are voters and families who look to the future and want it to be the best it can be. To achieve that, we must urge the American people not to reward those who condemn others for rejecting the status quo. We must together decide to stand for freedom, fairness and a renewed American future.

 

[From an article by Tammy Bruce, published by THE WASHINGTON TIMES]

 

………………………………………………………

 

As always, posted for your edification and enlightenment by

NORM ‘n’ AL, Minneapolis
normal@usa1usa.com
612.239.0970

 

 

 

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

CNN poll says Hillary Clinton is most dishonest candidate in presidential race…

Hillary Clinton is vehemently disputing new charges that she sent top-secret information from a nonsecure email account while at the State Department, but analysts say the scandal has already damaged her so deeply that her presidential ambitions are at risk.

Mrs. Clinton’s messages contained some information classified above “top secret,” the intelligence community’s inspector general said in a letter to Congress this week. Fox News reported Thursday that the information is so sensitive that even senators, who already have clearance, must go through additional hoops if they want to see some of what she was sending.

The Clinton campaign responded by accusing the inspector general, I. Charles McCullough, appointed by President Obama, of politically motivated leaks to sabotage her campaign.

But she is suffering from the slow drip of the email scandal. Surveys show voters see her chief primary challenger, Sen. Bernard Sanders, as much more honest and trustworthy.

“Trustworthiness is not a problem by itself for Clinton, but combined with other past and present scandals weighing her down, alternative candidates like Sanders begin to look more appealing,” said Brandon Rottinghaus, a political science professor at the University of Houston who specializes in political leadership. “For a candidate with enough negative stories and rumors about them as Hillary Clinton, her campaign can refute individual charges to win a daily news battle but lose the larger perception war.”

There is ample evidence that the war already has been lost.

A recent Quinnipiac University Poll found that 93 percent of Democratic primary voters consider Mr. Sanders honest and trustworthy, while just 66 percent said the same of Mrs. Clinton.

A CNN survey conducted this month found that 55 percent of Democratic voters consider Mrs. Clinton to be the “least honest” candidate in the race.

Against that backdrop, reports surfaced this week that Mrs. Clinton’s private email server contained several dozen more classified emails than previously thought, including some from “special access programs,” or SAP.

Even top members of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations are unable to view such messages without additional security steps, including signing new nondisclosure agreements, Fox News reported.

“These declarations cover several dozen emails containing classified information determined to be at the confidential, secret and top secret/sap levels,” Mr. McCullough said in a letter to lawmakers obtained by The Associated Press.

Mrs. Clinton pushed back against the reports in an interview with NPR Wednesday, sticking to the story that she never knowingly sent or received classified email on her private server, which was housed outside the formal State.gov domain.

“As the State Department has confirmed, I never sent or received any material marked classified, and that hasn’t changed in all of these months,” she said, blaming congressional Republicans for the continued focus on her emails. “This seems to me to be, you know, another effort to inject this into the campaign. It’s another leak.”

Her campaign argued that the emails appear to have been forwards of a New York Times article on a classified drone program, and say the messages seem to have been retroactively classified.

 Unfortunately for Mrs. C, her lies are now so numerous and so brazen that she is “The Alphabet Candidate,” as in “ABC.”  The ABC now means “Anybody But Clinton.” Hillary cannot tell the truth at this point, because the hole she continues to dig by lying is very deep and very wide. She wants America to believe all she did was forward a newspaper article to somebody, when the FBI is about to dump a truckload of evidence on us that shows she is up to her old tricks…lying, covering up, and pretending she cares about somebody other than herself. If America is stupid enough to elect her, she will give us more, LOTS more, of what OOOObama has been shoveling at us for two terms, treating us like mushrooms.  At this point even the Democrats like Bernie Sanders much more than Hillary.  It’s people like OOOObama and Clinton (BOTH Clintons) who give the 2% of honest and effective politicians a bad name….  (NORM ‘n’ AL Note)

“How a New York Times public article that goes around the world could be in any way viewed as classified, or the fact that it would be sent to other people off of The New York Times site, I think, is one of the difficulties that people have in understanding what this is about,” Mrs. Clinton told NPR.

The State Department is under a court order to produce about 55,000 emails from Mrs. Clinton’s home server. Most have been released, with the last of them expected on Jan. 29 — just days before the Iowa caucuses on Feb. 1.

Mrs. Clinton’s use of private email has dogged her since it was first revealed publicly in March 2015. She began returning her emails to the State Department after the Obama administration, prodded by a House investigation into the Benghazi affair, discovered Mrs. Clinton had taken all of her messages with her when she left the State Department at the end of Mr. Obama’s first term.

The administration then said that Mrs. Clinton had refused to use a regular email account on the State.gov email server and instead used a private server that she kept in her home in New York.

Mrs. Clinton has since said she regrets using the private server, but has steadfastly maintained that she did not use the private account to send or receive classified information.

Investigations also have found that the State Department routinely has botched open records requests for Mrs. Clinton’s emails. As of Jan. 7, 177 requests for documents from Mrs. Clinton were still pending, according to the State Department inspector general.

Specialists say that voters on the fence in the Democratic primary election may very well take the email scandal — and the larger questions about Mrs. Clinton’s honesty — into account when picking a candidate.

“The problem for Hillary Clinton is that there are alternatives to her candidacy in Bernie Sanders. This is why polls of Democrats don’t think Sanders can win [the general election] but are willing to vote for him anyway,” Mr. Rottinghaus said.

 

[by Ben Wolfgang, writing for THE WASHINGTON TIMES]

 

……………………………………….

 

As always, posted for your edification and enlightenment by

NORM ‘n’ AL, Minneapolis
normal@usa1usa.com
612.239.0970

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Clinton tells Benghazi committee Ambassador Stevens was “responsible for his own security” decisions at the embassy in Libya…

Hillary: not hillarious now

Ambassador Stevens must have misunderstood the “you’re responsible” memo, and contacted the State Department over and over again about the full-of-holes security at the embassy compound in Benghazi, Libya, repeatedly wasting his time and that of Clinton and her State Department staff.  Is that what we’re supposed to believe?

 

Former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton brushed aside emails Thursday that showed she privately told family and world leaders that the 2012 attack on the U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi was a terrorist assault, and said Ambassador Christopher Stevens was responsible for his own decisions regarding skimpy security ahead of his death.

Testifying to the House Select Committee on Benghazi, a composed and controlled Mrs. Clinton said she was involved in the big decisions of deploying Stevens to Libya and pressing President Obama to lead the war effort that ousted Moammar Gadhafi. But she deflected responsibility for much of what went wrong, saying the ambassador’s requests for more protection, which were denied, were handled at levels beneath her.

 Mrs. Clinton also revealed that she gave orders for her lawyer and aides to go through her emails, but she did not “look over their shoulder” and didn’t know exactly how they decided which emails were work-related business. And she declined to agree to release any emails recovered from her server.

In a hearing that lasted more than eight hours, Mrs. Clinton escaped without the kind of major gaffe that plagued her 2013 appearance before the Senate.

But she seemed unsure of whether she spoke with Stevens in the months between swearing him in as ambassador and the attack, in which he died of smoke inhalation.

And she stumbled over her relationship with family confidant Sidney Blumenthal, who repeatedly sent her messages about Benghazi at her special email account, and she struggled to explain her department’s public stance blaming the anti-Islam video with what her own staffers — and she herself — were saying in the immediate aftermath of the attack, which left Stevens and three other Americans dead.

Mrs. Clinton said her statement, issued the night of Sept. 11, that appeared to attribute the violence to “inflammatory material posted on the Internet,” was actually meant to be a warning to others not to blame the video — something that came to pass anyway.

Republicans were incredulous at that explanation, saying her official statement was belied by an email she sent to her daughter and a phone call she made to the Egyptian prime minister, where she said the attack was perpetrated by al Qaeda.

“State Department experts knew the truth. You knew the truth. But that’s not what the American people got. And again, the American people want to know why,” Rep. Jim Jordan told Mrs. Clinton in a heated exchange.

Mrs. Clinton rejected the line of questioning, saying the intelligence community itself was conflicted.

“I believe to this day the video played a role,” the former secretary said.

A short distance away from Mrs. Clinton’s marathon appearance, FBI Director James B. Comey fielded a question from the House Judiciary Committee about his agency’s criminal investigation into her use of a server she kept at her home in New York, including classified government business. He made clear the case is a top priority.

“As you also know about the FBI, we don’t talk about our investigations while we do them. This is one I’m following very closely and get briefed on regularly,” he said.

Mrs. Clinton defended her handling of the emails, repeating again that none of the emails was marked classified at the time she sent or received them. And she defended the way she decided which emails to return to the government, saying she tasked her lawyers and aides, rather than doing it herself.

“I thought that was the appropriate way to proceed,” she said.

Mrs. Clinton, the front-runner for Democrats’ presidential nomination, kicked off her testimony with remarks that tended toward campaign policy speech, saying she led a State Department committed to a forward-leaning posture.
“Retreat from the world is not an option,” she said.

As she gave her testimony, Mrs. Clinton was surrounded by some of her closest longtime aides who served under her at the State Department and now hold key posts in the Clinton campaign.

Reserved seats in the row immediately behind the witness desk were filled by Huma Abedin, who was Mrs. Clinton’s personal assistant at the department and now serves as national vice chair of the campaign; Jake Sullivan, who went from being a director of policy planning at the State Department to being the campaign’s top foreign policy advisor; and Nick Merrill, who went from a communications official at the State Department to a campaign spokesman.

Democrats on the Benghazi committee repeatedly sprang to Mrs. Clinton’s defense, questioning the very existence of the probe — an inquiry they have threatened to quit.

“We have learned nothing substantively new about what happened in Benghazi,” said Rep. Adam Smith, Washington Democrat. “This committee in all that time and effort has unearthed nothing. Instead, they want to prosecute you and rip apart your every word, your every e-mail.”

Later in the hearing he said the GOP was asking “vicious” questions in an attempt to wear Mrs. Clinton down — drawing a chuckle from the former secretary.

Republicans said Democrats never intended to pursue the inquiry, and have tried to thwart the investigation at every turn. The GOP lawmakers said previous investigations by the State Department and other congressional committees didn’t go far enough, for example failing to discover Mrs. Clinton’s tens of thousands of emails, which she shielded from public disclosure by taking them with her when she left office.

Under questioning by Rep. Susan Brooks, Indiana Republican, Mrs. Clinton said believed she spoke with Stevens at some point after she swore him in as ambassador, though she couldn’t remember when or what they talked about. Republicans said there was no record of any communication.

But Mrs. Clinton said the lack of better security in Benghazi at the time of the attack was the responsibility of Stevens himself and the security professionals she trusted to advise her, and who rejected some of the ambassador’s requests.

“Chris Stevens had an opportunity to reach me directly any time he thought there was something of importance,” the former secretary said.

Republicans said it appeared Mrs. Clinton lost interest in Libya after the 2011 U.S.-led effort to oust Benghazi. Rep. Susan Brooks, Indiana Republican, laid a massive stack of Libya-related emails on the dais that she said were from 2011, then placed beside them a skimpy stack from 2012, saying the lack of attention showed.

Mrs. Clinton countered that she didn’t do much of her business by email.
As the hearing extended beyond eight hours, Mrs. Clinton stood her ground and kept her cool against increasingly aggressive questioning.

Rep. Peter Roskam, Illinois Republican, said she was shifting blame for what happened, and asked her if she was responsible for the deaths of Stevens and the other Americans.

“Of course I would not say that,” Mrs. Clinton said firmly, “and I think it is a disservice for you to make that comment. … It is a disservice to people who are charged with making difficult security decisions.”

Facing questions about her own actions the night of the attack, Mrs. Clinton said she did not call Defense Secretary Leon Panetta or Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Martin Dempsey, saying there was no reason because they were already doing what they needed to do to try to support the Americans on the ground.

Mrs. Clinton’s relationship with Sidney Blumenthal, a controversial figure she characterized as an old friend, also took center stage. She revised her earlier statement that she never solicited information from him, correcting herself to say that she didn’t initiate the first inquiries but listening as investigation Chairman Trey Gowdy read emails she wrote asking for Mr. Blumenthal’s advice and opinions.

Mrs. Clinton said she didn’t vet Mr. Blumenthal’s sources, but struggled to explain why she then deleted him as the origin of emails she forwarded on to others.

Rep. Elijah E. Cummings, the ranking Democrat on the probe, said that line of questioning was a disservice to the families of the Americans who died.

“I mean, if you’re a family member, and you’re sitting out there waiting for answers to your questions, you’re going to have to wonder why it is that the first questions that come forth are about somebody who knows nothing about Benghazi, has never been to Libya,” Mr. Cummings said.

 

[by S. A. Miller and Stephen Dinan, writing for THE WASHINGTON TIMES]

 

NORM ‘n’ AL Note:  What Mrs. Clinton, and her husband Bill Clinton, and Mr. O in the White House, and a vast horde of politicians in Washington do not seem to realize, is that most Americans know when they are being lied to.  If you are a politician who tries to adhere to the truth but who is used to being lied to, you are even more apt to know truth from lies.  In addition, if you make it a practice to tell the truth, then you don’t have to try to remember who you lied to and what lies you told.  The more lies you tell, the more you have to remember who you lied to and what you said to whom.  It soon becomes an impossible burden to keep it all straight in your mind.  NOBODY can successfully master it all the time forever.  Or to put it another way, eventually your lies will become obvious, Mrs. Clinton.

 

……………………………………….

 

As always, posted for your edification and enlightenment by

NORM ‘n’ AL, Minneapolis
normal@usa1usa.com
612.239.0970

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Unbelievable but true: IRS finds yet another Lois Lerner email account…

Lois Lerner had yet another personal email account used to conduct some IRS business, the tax agency confirmed in a new court filing late Monday that further complicates the administration’s efforts to be transparent about Ms. Lerner’s actions during the tea party targeting scandal.

 

NORM ‘n’ AL Note:  Anyone in the entire USA who still thinks that the Obama administration EVER had any desire to be “transparent” about ANYTHING has not been paying attention for the last several years. It has always been Obama’s goal to be as non-transparent (that means “secretive”) as possible.

 

The admission came in an open-records lawsuit filed by Judicial Watch, a conservative public interest law firm that has sued to get a look at emails Ms. Lerner sent during the targeting.

IRS lawyer Geoffrey J. Klimas told the court that as the agency was putting together a set of documents to turn over to Judicial Watch, it realized Ms. Lerner had used yet another email account, in addition to her official one and another personal one already known to the agency.

“In addition to emails to or from an email account denominated ‘Lois G. Lerner‘ or ‘Lois Home,’ some emails responsive to Judicial Watch’s request may have been sent to or received from a personal email account denominated ‘Toby Miles,’” Mr. Klimas told Judge Emmet G. Sullivan, who is hearing the case.

It is unclear who Toby Miles is, but Mr. Klimas said the IRS has concluded that was “a personal email account used by Lerner.”

Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, said it was stunning the agency was just now admitting the existence of the address.

“It is simply astonishing that years after this scandal erupted we are learning about an account Lois Lerner used that evidently hadn’t been searched,” he said, accusing the IRS of hiding Lerner-related information throughout — including the existence of the backup tapes of her official email account, which the agency’s inspector general easily found once it went looking for them.

Mr. Klimas didn’t respond to an email seeking comment Monday evening, and a spokeswoman for the tax agency didn’t respond to an email and phone call.

But in his court filing Mr. Klimas argued that the IRS had previously hinted there may be other personal email accounts, pointing back to a footnote in a letter attached to a June 27, 2014, brief that mentioned “documents located on her personal home computer and email on her personal email account.”

He altered that wording in his filing Monday, saying the database of Lerner emails turned over to Congress included messages from her “‘personal home computer and email on her personal email’ account(s).”

The use of secret or extra email accounts has bedeviled the Obama administration, which is has tried to fend off a slew of lawsuits involving former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and her top aides, the White House’s top science adviser, top Environmental Protection Agency officials and the IRS.

Those cases have flooded the federal district court in Washington. Indeed, Judge Sullivan, who is handling the current IRS case, is also presiding over Judicial Watch’s lawsuit seeking Mrs. Clinton’s emails.

Last week, Judge Sullivan ordered the State Department to talk to the FBI about trying to recover messages that Mrs. Clinton may have kept on the email server she ran out of her home in New York.

Mr. Fitton said just as Mrs. Clinton is facing questions over whether she kept classified information on her non-secure email account, Ms. Lerner should face questions about whether she exchanged protected taxpayer information from personal email accounts.

Ms. Lerner’s emails became an issue after she was singled out as a key figure in the IRS’s treatment of tea party and conservative groups who sought tax-exempt status. The IRS improperly delayed hundreds of applications and sent out intrusive questionnaires asking what the agency now says were inappropriate inquiries.

In the wake of the scandal Ms. Lerner retired from the agency. She declined to testify to Congress, citing her right against self-incrimination, but also said she did not break the law.

The Obama administration has declined to pursue the contempt of Congress case that the House brought against her.

The House Ways and Means Committee also approved a criminal referral asking the Justice Department to look into Ms. Lerner’s conduct, but its status is not clear.

Mr. Obama has said the problems at the IRS stemmed from bad laws and lack of funding, not from political bias, and a bipartisan report from the Senate Finance Committee could not reach any firm conclusions about the extent of targeting.

Curiously, the Ways and Means Committee criminal referral mentioned the Toby Miles email address, identified as tobomatic@msn.com. The address came to light because it was included on an email that also had Ms. Lerner’s official account on the chain of recipients.

An email sent to the msn.com address Monday night went unanswered.

At the time of the referral in April 2014, the committee linked the Toby Miles address to Ms. Lerner’s husband, Michael R. Miles, but said, “The source of the name ‘Toby‘ is not known.”

 

[by Stephen Dinan, writing for The Washington Times]

 

NORM ‘n’ AL Note:  All that targeting ruckus at the IRS came about because of “bad laws and lack of funding, not from political bias”?  So Lois Lerner declined to testify because she would otherwise incriminate herself, also due to bad laws and lack of funding?  No political bias there from Lerner, even in spite of her own recorded heavily-biased comments?  If this is what you call transparency, Mr. Z, you can keep it…

 

……………………………………..

 

As always, posted for your edification and enlightenment by

NORM ‘n’ AL, Minneapolis
normal@usa1usa.com
612.239.0970

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

US intelligence agencies now working overtime to try to assess and contain the damage they are sure was caused by Hillary Clinton’s private, not-secure email accounts…intel community fearing massive damage from hundreds of leaked secrets on Hillary’s private email server…

Will the real Hillary please stand up?

Congress notified that damage likely to be far more extensive than first thought

 

The U.S. intelligence community is bracing for the possibility that former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s private email account contains hundreds of revelations of classified information from spy agencies and is taking steps to contain any damage to national security, according to documents and interviews Thursday.

The top lawmakers on the House and Senate intelligence committee have been notified in recent days that the extent of classified information on Mrs. Clinton’s private email server was likely far more extensive than the four emails publicly acknowledged last week as containing some sensitive spy agency secrets.

A U.S. official directly familiar with the notification, who spoke only on the condition of anonymity, said the notification of possibly hundreds of additional emails with classified secrets came from the State Department Freedom of Information Act office to the Office of Inspector General for the Director of National Intelligence.

The inspector general, the chief oversight watchdog for the entire U.S. intelligence community, subsequently sent a letter to the Republican chairmen and ranking Democrats of the Senate and House intelligence committees, the official said.

“We were informed by State FOIA officials that there are potentially hundreds of classified emails within the 30,000 provided for former Secretary Clinton,” DNI Inspector General I. Charles McCullough III late last week wrote Sen. Richard Burr, North Carolina Republican; Sen. Dianne Feinstein, California Democrat; Rep. Devin Nunes, California Republican; and Rep. Adam B. Schiff, California Democrat.

“We note that none of the emails we reviewed had classification or dissemination markings but some included IC-derived classified information and should have been handled as classified, appropriately marked and transmitted via a secure server,” Mr. McCullough wrote the four lawmakers.

The U.S. official said the intelligence community has been informed that secret information had been contained in some of Mrs. Clinton’s private emails that originated from the FBI, the DNI and the CIA as well as a spy satellite agency. It is believed the 30,000 emails remain on a thumb drive in the possession of Mrs. Clinton’s private attorney, David Kendall.

The official said the intelligence community’s first response was to take steps to secure the handling of remaining 30,000 emails and make sure they were handled on top-secret servers to avoid any further breaches, and then to assess any damage to national security from the insecure handling and release of information already in some of the publicly disseminated emails.

“Containment first, then a damage assessment is how this must be handled,” the official said.

The official said the intelligence community was already concerned, for instance, that some classified information was inadvertently disclosed by the State Department in recent weeks when one of Mrs. Clinton’s emails about Libya was publicly released.

The inspector general’s notification to Capitol Hill and the Justice Department also opens possible legal exposure for Mrs. Clinton about improper handling of classified materials, something her attorney knows much about.

Mr. Kendall represented former CIA Director David H. Petraeus last year when he pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of mishandling national secrets because he gave some classified information to his mistress and biographer and stored a classified book of information in his home in an insecure manner.

Separately, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, Iowa Republican, sent a letter to FBI Director James Comey asking him to explain what the bureau was doing to keep secure the classified information within 30,000 Clinton emails known to be on Mr. Kendall’s thumb drive.

“It’s a serious breach of national security if the United States government fails to secure classified material in the hands of people not authorized to possess it, no matter who they are. There are fundamental questions as to what the FBI is doing to securing these classified emails and why the State Department is not fully cooperating with the inspectors general at the State Department and the Intelligence Community to ensure that all of the appropriate emails are identified,” Mr. Grassley wrote.

Mr. Grassley also sent a letter to Secretary of State John F. Kerry inquiring about the delay in sending the 30,000 emails to intelligence community inspectors general.

Mrs. Clinton, the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination, fended off the new questions about the email scandal and suspicious foreign donations to the Clinton Foundation, distracting from her effort to wrangle support from union bosses at the AFL-CIO’s annual summer meeting.

The former secretary of state’s email woes deepened when a federal judge scolded the State Department for delays in releasing the documents, as the agency revealed that Mrs. Clinton’s closest aides and top officials during her tenure at the agency — Huma Abedin, Cheryl Mills and Jake Sullivan — also used private email accounts and all of their message have not been turned over to the State Department.

“I think we have been proceeding in a timely fashion, and indeed the vast majority of the emails that I turned over and that are being turned over by others were already in the State Department system,” Mrs. Clinton said at a press conference at the union meeting in the Washington suburb of Silver Spring, Maryland.

Her response to reporters was the same explanation she gave in March, when it came to light that she had used a private email account exclusively for official business as America’s top diplomat, shielding her correspondence from probes by Congress and requests under the Freedom of Information Act.

It remains unclear how much of her email was captured by the State Department system during exchanges with other agency employees, especially since other high-ranking officials at the agency also were using private email accounts.
Mrs. Clinton batted questions about the email back at the agency.

“This is really a question for the State Department,” she said at the union press conference. “They are the ones that are bearing the responsibility to sort through these thousands and thousands of emails and determine at what pace they can be released, and I really hope that it will be as quickly as possible.”

Mrs. Clinton has insisted that she followed the rules and used a private email account because it was more convenient for her than juggling two smartphones. But nearly two years after she left office and after a congressional probe learned about her private email account, she turned over about 30,000 messages to the State Department and erased another 32,000 messages that she deemed personal.

At some point, she wiped clean the email server kept in her home in Chappaqua, New York, preventing any of the messages from being recovered.

Questions about her email setup and foreign donations to the Clinton Foundation while she was secretary of state, which potentially posed conflicts of interest, have dogged Mrs. Clinton’s presidential campaign. The controversies have hit her in the polls, with a majority of voters nationwide saying they don’t think she is honest and trustworthy.

The former first lady, senator and top diplomat also had to tamp down reports about increased donations to the Clinton Foundation from Swiss bank USB after she intervened to settle IRS charges that the bank had helped thousands of Americans use secret accounts to avoid U.S. taxes.

Coinciding with Mrs. Clinton’s involvement, the bank’s donations to the Clinton Foundation grew from less than $60,000 in 2008 to roughly $600,000 by the end of 2014. The bank also paid Mrs. Clinton’s husband, former President Bill Clinton, $1.5 million for participating in a series of corporate events, The Wall Street Journal reported.

In June, The Washington Times reported that Mr. Clinton’s foundation set up a fundraising arm in Sweden that collected $26 million in donations at the same time that country was lobbying Mrs. Clinton’s State Department to forgo sanctions that threatened its thriving business with Iran.

The Swedish entity, called the William J. Clinton Foundation Insamlingsstiftelse, was never disclosed to or cleared by State Department ethics officials, even though one of its largest sources of donations was a Swedish government-sanctioned lottery.

As the money flowed to the foundation from Sweden, Mrs. Clinton’s team in Washington declined to blacklist any Swedish firms despite warnings from career officials at the U.S. Embassy in Stockholm that Sweden was expanding its economic ties with Iran and potentially undercutting Western efforts to end Tehran’s rogue nuclear program, diplomatic cables show.

Mrs. Clinton said any implication of wrongdoing was “categorically false.”

“I worked hard as our nation’s first diplomat to solve problems, to work with my colleagues in government,” she said. “I remember the governmentwide efforts to try to pursue America’s interest with respect to Swiss banks and there was a resolution to that, and it continued to be the subject of diplomacy and law enforcement interest.”

She dismissed the report as routine campaign politics.

“You know, this is just the kind of unfortunate claim or charge that you see in campaigns,” Mrs. Clinton said.

The press conference demonstrated that her answers have not settled the matters and the scandals will continue to overshadow her campaign.

At the AFL-CIO meeting, Mrs. Clinton met with the union leaders behind closed doors to woo support with her pledge to fight for higher wages and for laws that would make it easier to unionize workplaces.

“I asked for their support going forward. I asked them to be my partner in making sure that we stand against those powerful forces on the other side that don’t agree with the [union] agenda,” she said.

Union insiders say the leadership prefers more aggressively pro-union candidates such as Sen. Bernard Sanders, the Vermont independent and avowed socialist who has emerged as the chief rival to Mrs. Clinton.

But Mr. Sanders trails by a wide margin and is widely viewed as unable to win.

That leaves the unions stuck with Mrs. Clinton, the all-but-inevitable nominee who has refused to take a position on the Keystone XL oil pipeline or the pending trade deal with Pacific Rim countries — issues that are top priorities for unions.

“That’s what we’re waiting for — for her to take a stand,” said an official from a union local at the meeting.

 

[by John Solomon and S.A. Miller, writing for The Washington Times]

 

NORM ‘n’ AL Note:  Hillary’s defense is still “My last name is Clinton, and we don’t make mistakes. When we DO make mistakes, they’re never important. Get over it.”  The Secretary of State, who obviously knew better than to use private, non-secure email accounts but did so anyway because she was too important to be inconvenienced, wants us to believe the whole dust-up over her email accounts is just politics as usual by the other side. “They just won’t leave me alone on this darn thing, America. They’re telling you that my emails were open to hack attacks by any and all foreign entities who wanted to get at ’em, but listen, they wouldn’t do that to me, I’m just sure they wouldn’t. I mean, it’s not like I used ‘Big HC at yahoo.com,’ or some silly account like that.  I couldn’t, anyway…somebody else already had that one.”  Keep in mind, folks, this lady thinks she’s qualified for the White House. Well, no, forget that one…after Mr. Zerobama, just about ANYBODY is qualified for the White House. But let’s at least try to find somebody who knows how to think, has a little class, and will put the country ahead of personal gain while in office. Just that much would be a huge and welcome change, wouldn’t it?

 

……………………………………….

 

As always, posted for your edification and enlightenment by

NORM ‘n’ AL, Minneapolis
normal@usa1usa.com
612.239.0970

 

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Hillary’s ties to Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac are large liabilities as next election approaches…

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are hurtling toward another possible taxpayer bailout, a development that could put an uncomfortable election light on the Clintons’ record of enabling the government-backed mortgage giants to engage in risky practices that led to the 2007 financial crisis.

There is growing consensus in financial circles that the seeds of the mortgage market collapse were sown during Bill Clinton’s presidency in the mid-1990s. That was when he helped push through changes that empowered Fannie and Freddie to give more mortgages to minorities and lower-income Americans, often at below-prime interest rates and with little down payments.

When the Federal Reserve and other respected voices began warning a decade ago that those changes were threatening the mortgage markets, Hillary Rodham Clinton joined fellow Democratic senators, including Barack Obama and John F. Kerry, in providing the votes to block Republican reforms designed to stave off a collapse.

The one-two punch could prove a political liability for Mrs. Clinton’s presidential bid, portraying her and her husband as facilitators for highly compensated mortgage brokers and undercutting her argument that she has been a longtime champion of the middle class.

“I certainly think we’re going down the path of another bailout of the mortgage market. If we keep on this path, it’s inevitable. It’s a concern people have,” said Mark Calabria, director of financial regulation studies at the Cato Institute. “It’s going to be a tough needle for her to thread — people on the left still believe Fannie and Freddie was a good model and that the housing crisis was all about Wall Street greed. She’s got a tough road to walk on this.”

Complicating the picture, the Clintons were benefiting politically from Freddie and Fannie’s largesse. Mrs. Clinton was among the biggest recipients of donations from the mortgage giants in all of Congress, and Mr. Clinton’s charitable foundation received a sizable donation from Freddie Mac in the mid-2000s as the mortgage firm was teetering financially.

Mrs. Clinton’s campaign did not respond to repeated requests seeking comment on Fannie and Freddie.

Homes for the poor

The Clintons’ mortgage policy saga began two decades ago during the booming early Internet era, when concern grew in Washington that minorities and the working poor weren’t reaping the benefits of an improving economy, especially in the housing market.

In a bid to create affordable housing for minorities and low-income residents, Mr. Clinton in 1995 ordered new bank regulations to encourage lending in poor neighborhoods. The Community Reinvestment Act gave banks higher ratings if they lent more in credit-deprived localities.

Maintaining a high CRA score was essential to the banks, pressuring them to give more loans to riskier clients, studies have shown. A lowered CRA rating would make it more difficult for a bank to become licensed to conduct business in other parts of the country, participate in other government lending programs, or complete mergers and acquisitions that needed the government’s approval.

The CRA was the channel through which “a U.S. Congress, worried about growing income inequality, towards expanding low income housing, joined with the flood of foreign capital inflows to remove any discipline on home loans,” Raghuram Rajan, a former chief economist and director of research at the International Monetary Fund, wrote in the Financial Times in 2010.

The National Bureau of Economic Research, a nonprofit organization, examined the impact of the CRA on risky mortgage lending. In a 2012 study, it found “that adherence to the act leads to riskier lending by banks: in the six quarters surrounding the CRA exams, lending is elevated on average by about 5 percent and these loans default about 15 percent more often.”

Three years before Mr. Clinton altered the CRA to encourage investment in lower-income communities, Rep. Barney Frank, Massachusetts Democrat, pushed to impose an “affordable housing” requirement on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

The thought was that minorities were being shut out of the housing market because Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were underwriting loans only to banks that were issuing prime mortgages — 30-year fixed mortgages that required healthy down payments. Minorities and the working poor often didn’t have the cash or creditworthiness to qualify for such loans.

A 1992 affordable housing “mission” led by Mr. Frank allowed the government-sponsored enterprises to back riskier loans and make sure a quota of all loans from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were going to this pool, which was defined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban development.

“At first, this quota was 30 percent; that is, of all the loans they bought, 30 percent had to be made to people at or below the median income in their communities,” Peter Wallison, who served on the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission in 2010, wrote in an article for The Atlantic. “HUD, however, was given authority to administer these quotas, and between 1992 and 2007, the quotas were raised from 30 percent to 50 percent under Clinton in 2000 and to 55 percent under [President George W.] Bush in 2007.”

“By 2000, Fannie was offering no-down-payment loans. By 2002, Fannie and Freddie had bought well over $1 trillion of subprime and other low quality loans,” Mr. Wallison wrote. “Fannie and Freddie were by far the largest part of this effort, but the [Federal Housing Administration], Federal Home Loan Banks, [the Department of Veterans Affairs] and other agencies — all under congressional and HUD pressure — followed suit.”

This was no accident. The Clinton administration made affordable housing a priority and appointed people in top positions to make it happen.

Mr. Clinton named Andrew Cuomo, now New York’s governor, as HUD secretary. Mr. Cuomo pushed to keep homeownership numbers rising under Mr. Clinton’s watch by increasing the quota of affordable housing loans to 50 percent of the government-sponsored enterprise business.

Under Mr. Cuomo, HUD commissioned a report that showed Fannie’s automated underwriting system disproportionately screened out minority borrowers — and urged the agency to correct the disparity.

Mr. Cuomo also refused to impose safeguards that would have prevented Fannie and Freddie from rushing into buying subprime mortgages, such as requiring lenders to provide details about these types of mortgages. In October 2000, Mr. Cuomo sided with the government-sponsored enterprises, arguing that this sort of transparency would impose an “undue additional burden” on the agencies.

Incentives for Fannie Mae

The Clinton administration also replaced many of Fannie Mae’s top executives, including its chief executive officer with Mr. Clinton’s former White House budget director Franklin Raines. It replaced Fannie’s No. 2 in charge and nearly half of the board of directors.

Fannie Mae then restructured its executives’ salary structures to give incentives to buy more mortgages.

“This was a clear case of the Clinton administration embarking on a massive folly,” said Norbert Michel, a research fellow in financial regulations at The Heritage Foundation. “Fannie and Freddie were relatively unimportant until [Mr. Clinton] blew it up. It was all in the goal of getting homeownership numbers up from 65 percent — where they had been holding stable for years — to somewhere around 75 percent. They made no bones about it — they wanted cheaper loans. To think you can increase homeownership rates with a flip of a switch with nothing to go wrong is completely insane. This is when it started — there’s no doubt.”

A 2002 HUD report says, “From 1993 to 1998, the number of subprime refinance increased tenfold.”

In 1999, Mr. Raines boasted to The New York Times: “Fannie Mae has expanded homeownership for millions of families in the 1990s by reducing down payment requirements.”

The riskiness and sustainability of these loans were highlighted in multiple warnings to Congress while Mrs. Clinton was a U.S. senator.

The Bush administration — although partly culpable for the housing crisis in that it raised the government-sponsored enterprises’ affordable housing goals to 55 percent — also called 17 times for reform of the agencies.

“We at the Federal Reserve remain concerned about the growth and magnitude of the mortgage portfolios of the government-sponsored enterprises, which concentrate interest rate risk and prepayment risk at these two institutions and makes our financial system dependent on their ability to manage these risks,” Alan Greenspan, chairman of the Federal Reserve, testified at an April 2005 hearing. “To fend off possible future systemic difficulties, which we assess as likely if GSE expansion continues unabated, preventive actions are required sooner rather than later.”

From 1998 to 2004, Fannie executives improperly reported $10.6 billion in earnings. Executives such as Mr. Raines were raking in huge paychecks because of the rising number of mortgages they were issuing.

During the six-year period, Mr. Raines received $52.8 million in bonuses, according to a 2006 report of an investigation by regulators at the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight.

Republican reforms rebuffed

Worried that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had grown too independent and bullish under Mr. Clinton’s watch, a Republican-controlled Congress under Mr. Bush tried to rein in the entities.

Yet Democrats including Mrs. Clinton — who were receiving huge campaign donations from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — filibustered reform.

By 2006, a bill to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had passed through the full House of Representatives and out of committee in the Senate, along party-line votes (all Republicans voting for it, all Democrats against).

The bill proposed the creation of a regulator for Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Home Loan Banks. The legislation would give the regulator the authority to shut down either Fannie or Freddie if they encountered a severe financial crisis, and would give it the power to regulate any new activities. The bill required an annual audit of the mortgage giants’ books and a provision that all directors be elected — not appointed by the president.

Five Senate Democrats needed to step forward and offer their support to end a filibuster and allow a vote.

None did, so the bill never even came to a vote on the Senate floor.

Sen. Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut, then the ranking Democrat on the Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee and No. 1 recipient of government-sponsored enterprise lobbying funds, opposed the bill. When Barack Obama entered the Senate in 2005, he was among the people supporting the filibuster.

Mrs. Clinton joined with Mr. Dodd and Mr. Obama to oppose the measure. All the other Senate Democrats lined up behind them.

Clinton’s encouragement

That same year, Mrs. Clinton was actively promoting broader lending to lower-income Americans — along the same philosophical policy lines as her husband did when he was president.

She introduced legislation to strengthen the Federal Housing Administration, specifically proposing to raise the ceiling on loan amounts that could be insured by the government in high-cost areas, and for the entity to be able to offer loans requiring no down payment.

Mrs. Clinton met with credit union leaders across New York in 2006 to congratulate them for making more than $180 million worth of first mortgage loans in underserved areas, exceeding their goal of $150 million. Encouraged, the credit union leaders committed to another $180 million the following year.

During this same period, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae’s political action committee and individuals linked to the companies donated $75,500 to Mrs. Clinton’s senatorial campaign — making her the fourth-largest recipient in Congress of the mortgage firms’ total donations in the years 1989 to 2008 behind Mr. Obama, Mr. Kerry, now secretary of state, and Mr. Dodd, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan group that studies campaign finance and political influence in Washington.

Freddie Mac also gave the Clinton Foundation a $50,000 to $100,000 donation.

By mid-2006, the Senate Republican sponsors of the regulatory bill became frustrated and wrote an open letter pleading for action from Senate leaders in both parties.

“We are concerned that if effective regulatory legislation for the housing-finance government sponsored enterprises (GSEs) is not enacted this year, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole,” they wrote.

The risky lending escalated. Fannie acquired $135 billion in what was dubbed as Alt-A mortgages — that is subprime or other risky lending — in 2006 and 2007, more than double the sum in all years before 2005, according to its annual reports.

The proposed 2006 reform was never passed, and the market collapsed a year later — with American taxpayers on the hook for $187.5 billion in defaulted loans guaranteed by the two mortgage giants.

Although Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were put in conservatorship and have repaid American taxpayers for the bailout, they have not been reformed.

Blaming the banks

In her 2008 presidential run, Mrs. Clinton spun the reason for the financial crisis into predatory lending by commercial banks that unfairly targeted unsuspecting and oftentimes minority communities — the same communities her husband said he was trying to target with more affordable mortgages during his administration.

“If I were president, I would address abuses across the mortgage industry with a plan to curb unfair lending practices and hold brokers and lenders accountable, give families the support they need to avoid foreclosure and increase the supply of affordable housing,” Mrs. Clinton said in a campaign appearance in August 2007 in Derry, New Hampshire.

Mrs. Clinton outlined a commitment of $1 billion in federal money to help local governments build and renovate more affordable housing, reforms aimed at “cracking down on unscrupulous brokers who lure unsuspecting families into unfair mortgages,” and those aimed at helping homeowners in foreclosure. She never proposed reforming the two entities that many believe led to the mortgage crisis: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

With Mrs. Clinton on the campaign trail again, the housing crisis seems to be a distant memory. She hasn’t addressed it or what her plans would be for Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac.

Those within the industry, however, say reforms need to be made.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac may need another taxpayer bailout in the next few years because they have been undercapitalized by the Treasury Department as they stall out in conservatorship — where 100 percent of their profits has to go to the Treasury, William Isaac, a former chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., warned in a March op-ed in The Wall Street Journal.

On an earnings call in February, Fannie Mae CEO Tim Mayopoulos warned that the company’s lack of capital “increases the likelihood that Fannie Mae will need additional capital from Treasury at some point.”

As for the government’s role in affordable housing — it’s only expanding. This month, HUD introduced rules that allow the government to withhold money from communities that fail to address historical segregation. Communities will be required to submit data analysis of segregation within their borders, set goals on how to reduce it and then track the results.

For many conservatives, this represents — again — an overstep of the government into the private market.

“For whatever good HUD does, it clearly has not won the war on poverty,” Rep. Jeb Hensarling, Texas Republican and chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, said in a June hearing. “Only economic growth and equal opportunity can do that. In other words, the greatest housing program in America remains a good career path in a growing economy, not a HUD program.”

 

[by Kelly Riddell, writing for The Washington Times]

 

……………………………………

 

As always, posted for your edification and enlightenment by

NORM ‘n’ AL, Minneapolis
normal@usa1usa.com
612.239.0970

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Hillary “provided material assistance to terrorists and lied to Congress in a venue where the law required her to be truthful”

Judge Andrew Napolitano gives us insight into Hillary Clinton’s actions while she was Secretary of State

 

In the course of my work, I am often asked by colleagues to review and explain documents and statutes. Recently, in conjunction with my colleagues Catherine Herridge and Pamela Browne, I read the transcripts of an interview Ms. Browne did with a man named Marc Turi, and Ms. Herridge asked me to review emails to and from State Department and congressional officials during the years when Hillary Clinton was the secretary of state.

What I saw has persuaded me beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty that Mrs. Clinton provided material assistance to terrorists and lied to Congress in a venue where the law required her to be truthful. Here is the backstory.

Mr. Turi is a lawfully licensed American arms dealer. In 2011, he applied to the Departments of State and Treasury for approvals to sell arms to the government of Qatar. Qatar is a small Middle Eastern country whose government is so entwined with the U.S. government that it almost always will do what American government officials ask of it.

In its efforts to keep arms from countries and groups that might harm Americans and American interests, Congress has authorized the Departments of State and Treasury to be arms gatekeepers. They can declare a country or group to be a terrorist organization, in which case selling or facilitating the sale of arms to it is a felony. They also can license dealers to sell.

Mr. Turi sold hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of arms to the government of Qatar, which then, at the request of American government officials, were sold, bartered or given to rebel groups in Libya and Syria. Some of the groups that received the arms were on the U.S. terror list. Thus, the same State and Treasury Departments that licensed the sales also prohibited them.

How could that be?

That’s where Mrs. Clinton’s secret State Department and her secret war come in. Because Mrs. Clinton used her husband’s computer server for all of her email traffic while she was the secretary of state, a violation of three federal laws, few in the State Department outside her inner circle knew what she was up to.

Now we know.

She obtained permission from President Obama and consent from congressional leaders in both houses of Congress and in both parties to arm rebels in Syria and Libya in an effort to overthrow the governments of those countries.

Many of the rebels Mrs. Clinton armed, using the weapons lawfully sold to Qatar by Mr. Turi and others, were terrorist groups who are our sworn enemies. There was no congressional declaration of war, no congressional vote, no congressional knowledge beyond fewer than a dozen members, and no federal statute that authorized this.

When Sen. Rand Paul, Kentucky Republican, asked Mrs. Clinton at a public hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee on Jan. 23, 2013, whether she knew about American arms shipped to the Middle East, to Turkey or to any other country, she denied any knowledge. It is unclear whether she was under oath at the time, but that is legally irrelevant. The obligation to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth to Congress pertains to all witnesses who testify before congressional committees, whether an oath has been administered or not. (Just ask Roger Clemens, who was twice prosecuted for misleading Congress about the contents of his urine while not under oath. He was acquitted.)

Here is her relevant testimony:

Mr. Paul: My question is, is the U.S. involved with any procuring of weapons, transfer of weapons, buying, selling anyhow transferring weapons to Turkey out of Libya?

Mrs. Clinton: To Turkey? … I will have to take that question for the record. Nobody’s ever raised that with me.

Mr. Paul: It’s been in news reports that ships have been leaving from Libya and that they may have weapons and what I’d like to know is the [Benghazi] annex that was close by . Were they involved with procuring, buying, selling, obtaining weapons and were any of these weapons transferred to other countries any countries, Turkey included?

Mrs. Clinton:  Senator, you will have to direct that question to the agency that ran the annex. And I will see what information is available and ahhhh .

Mr. Paul: You are saying you don’t know .

Mrs. Clinton: I do not know. I don’t have any information on that.

At the time that Mrs. Clinton denied knowledge of the arms shipments, she and her State Department political designee, Andrew Shapiro, had authorized thousands of shipments of billions of dollars’ worth of arms to U.S. enemies to fight her secret war. Among the casualties of her war were U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens and three colleagues, who were assassinated at the American consulate in Benghazi, by rebels Mrs. Clinton armed with American military hardware in violation of American law.

This secret war and the criminal behavior that animated it was the product of conspirators in the White House, the State Department, the Treasury Department, the Justice Department, the CIA and a tight-knit group of members of Congress. Their conspiracy has now unraveled. Where is the outrage among the balance of Congress?

Hillary Clinton lied to Congress, gave arms to terrorists and destroyed her emails. How much longer can she hide the truth? How much longer can her lawlessness go unchallenged and unprosecuted? Does she really think the American voters will overlook her criminal behavior and put her in the White House where she can [and certainly would (-NORM ‘n’ AL)] pardon herself?

 

[by Judge Napolitano, who wrote this for The Washington Times]

 

NORM ‘n’ AL Note:  Hillary Clinton, like her husband Bill and like her former boss, Mr. Obama, has no respect for the law. The mere fact that she would use her own unsecured email account for official government business, when she knew this was easily compromising to US security, is proof of that. Hillary is like Bill and Obama, and only respects the law when it comes back to bite her…which it is now doing. Why is it that when people get elected or appointed to high national office, they decide the laws apply to others, but not to them? Is there no one left in our entire US government who is willing to tell — and live by — the truth?

 

……………………………………..

 

As always, posted for your edification and enlightenment by

NORM ‘n’ AL, Minneapolis
normal@usa1usa.com
612.239.0970

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Clintons know precisely what “conflict of interest” means…they just don’t think it should apply to them

Their foundation cashing in big-time as Sweden and other countries lobby Hillary for special treatment

 

Bill Clinton’s foundation set up a fundraising arm in Sweden that collected $26 million in donations at the same time that country was lobbying Hillary Rodham Clinton’s State Department to forgo sanctions that threatened its thriving business with Iran, according to interviews and documents obtained by The Washington Times.

The Swedish entity, called the William J. Clinton Foundation Insamlingsstiftelse, was never disclosed to or cleared by State Department ethics officials, even though one of its largest sources of donations was a Swedish government-sanctioned lottery.

As the money flowed to the foundation from Sweden, Mrs. Clinton’s team in Washington declined to blacklist any Swedish firms despite warnings from career officials at the U.S. Embassy in Stockholm that Sweden was growing its economic ties with Iran and potentially undercutting Western efforts to end Tehran’s rogue nuclear program, diplomatic cables show.

Sweden does not support implementing tighter financial sanctions on Iran” and believes “more stringent financial standards could hurt Swedish exports,” one such cable from 2009 alerted Mrs. Clinton’s office in Washington.

Separately, U.S. intelligence was reporting that Sweden’s second-largest employer, telecommunications giant Ericsson AB, was pitching cellphone tracking technology to Iran that could be used by the country’s security services, officials told The Times.

By the time Mrs. Clinton left office in 2013, the Clinton Foundation Insamlingsstiftelse had collected millions of dollars inside Sweden for his global charitable efforts and Mr. Clinton personally pocketed a record $750,000 speech fee from Ericsson, one of the firms at the center of the sanctions debate.

Mr. Clinton’s Swedish fundraising shell escaped public notice, both because its incorporation papers were filed in Stockholm — some 4,200 miles from America’s shores — and the identities of its donors were lumped by Mr. Clinton’s team into the disclosure reports of his U.S.-based charity, blurring the lines between what were two separate organizations incorporated under two different countries’ laws.

The foundation told The Times through a spokesman that the Swedish entity was set up primarily to collect donations from popular lotteries in that country, that the money went to charitable causes like fighting climate change, AIDS in Africa and cholera in Haiti, and that all of the Swedish donors were accounted for on the rolls publicly released by the U.S. charity.

The foundation, however, declined repeated requests to identify the names of the specific donors that passed through the Swedish arm.

A spokesman for Mrs. Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign declined comment.

When Mrs. Clinton became President Obama’s secretary of state in 2009, she vowed to set up a transparent review system that would ensure any of her husband’s fundraising or lucrative speaking activities were reviewed for possible ties to foreign countries doing business with her agency, insisting she wanted to eliminate even the “appearance” of conflicts of interests.

But there is growing evidence that the Clintons did not run certain financial activities involving foreign entities by the State Department, such as the Swedish fundraising arm and the Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative based in Canada, or disclose on her annual ethics form the existence of a limited liability corporation that Mr. Clinton set up for his personal consulting work.

The ethics agreement the Clintons signed in 2009 with the State Department stated that if a foreign government chose to “elect to increase materially its commitment, or should a new contributor country elect to support” Mr. Clinton’s charitable causes, “the Foundation will share such countries and the circumstances of the anticipated contribution with the State Department designated agency ethics official for review.”

The foundation spokesman said Mr. Clinton’s team had nothing to hide about the Swedish entity and set it up solely to take advantage of changes in Swedish law in 2011 that allowed some of the country’s lucrative lotteries to direct their charitable giving to the American-based Clinton Foundation.

The spokesman said Mr. Clinton’s team believed the Nationale Postcode Loterij and the Swedish Postcode Lottery, two of the biggest contributors to the Swedish fundraising arm, were privately owned and unrelated to the Swedish government.

Both lotteries are owned by the private firm Novamedia, but they are closely regulated by the Swedish government, and the Postcode Lottery’s top manager is approved and regulated by the Swedish government, according to interviews and documents.

According to Novamedia’s 2014 annual report, the Swedish Postcode Lottery’s managing director “is also the Lottery Manager appointed by the Swedish Gambling Authority. The Swedish Gambling Authority, which grants the lottery license, collaborates closely with the Lottery Manager and supervises the lottery.”

About half the funds collected by the foundation’s Swedish arm in 2011 and 2012 came from lottery enterprises tied to Novamedia.

“The Clinton Foundation is a philanthropy, period,” foundation spokesman Craig Minassian told the Times. “We’ve voluntarily disclosed our more than 300,000 donors on our website, including those from Sweden. In fact, support from the Swedish Postcode Lottery has helped give millions of people access to HIV/AIDS treatment, lifted tens of thousands of rural farmers out of poverty, helped rebuild Haiti after the devastating earthquake and made it possible for cities and countries to reduce their carbon output by millions of tons. The truth is, when organizations like this support the Clinton Foundation, they do want something in return: they want to see lives improved through our work.”

Those who have followed or investigated the Clintons over their three decades of power in Washington say the Swedish episode uncovered by The Times fits a familiar pattern of ambiguous transparency promises and fundraising carried out through cutouts that targeted foreigners with business interests before the U.S. government.

“They were very effective in being able to obfuscate what they were doing through cutouts and how they were raising their money,” said retired Rep. Dan Burton, a Republican who chaired the main House investigative committee in the late 1990s that probed many of the Clintons’ activities ranging from travel office firings and Whitewater investments to Asian fundraising.

The latter investigation disclosed an extensive 1996 Clinton fundraising operation that rewarded donors with White House coffees, access to top officials and nights in the Lincoln Bedroom despite the Clintons’ promise to run the most ethical administration in history. It also proved that illegal foreign money went to the Democratic Party from the likes of Johnny Chung, a fundraiser who admitted taking $300,000 from a Chinese military officer and giving it to Democrats, and James Riady, who pleaded guilty to routing foreign funds through a network of “straw donors” who enriched the Clinton campaign and Democratic Party while collecting political favors for his companies.

“[The Clintons] understood it’s easy to raise money when you solicit people who had business pending before the government,” Mr. Burton said. “The information that established this pattern was substantial, coming from both friends and adversaries around the world who knew they could gain access to the president and his administration and they could get things done if they were willing to pony up the money.”

At the time of Mr. Clinton’s foray into Swedish fundraising, the Swedish government was pressing Mrs. Clinton’s State Department not to impose new sanctions on firms doing business with Iran, including hometown companies Ericsson and Volvo.

Mrs. Clinton’s State Department issued two orders identifying lists of companies newly sanctioned in 2011 and 2012 for doing business with Iran, but neither listed any Swedish entities.

Behind the scenes, however, the U.S. Embassy in Stockholm was clearly warning the State Department in Washington that Sweden’s trade was growing with Iran — despite Swedish government claims to the contrary.

“Although our Swedish interlocutors continue to tell us that Europe’s overall trade with Iran is falling, the statements and information found on Swedish and English language websites shows that Sweden’s trade with Iran is growing,” the U.S. Embassy wrote in a Dec. 22, 2009, cable to the State Department that was released by WikiLeaks. The cable indicates it was sent to Mrs. Clinton’s office.

At the time of the warning, Mrs. Clinton was about a year into her tenure as Mr. Obama’s secretary of state and the two were leading efforts in Washington to tighten sanctions on Iran.

The Swedes were resistant to new sanctions, telling State Department officials repeatedly and unequivocally that they were worried new penalties would stifle the business between its country’s firms and Tehran. At the time, Iran was Sweden’s second-largest export market in the Middle East after Saudi Arabia.

“Behind the Swedish government’s reluctance to support further sanctions in Iran, especially unilateral European measures, is a dynamic (though still fairly small) trade involving some of Sweden’s largest and most politically well-connected companies: Volvo, Ericsson and ABB to name three,” the U.S. Embassy wrote in one cable to Washington.

Several top Swedish officials made the case against proposed U.S. sanctions in successive meetings in 2009 and 2010, according to classified cables released by WikiLeaks.

“[Swedish] Sanctions coordinator [Per] Saland told us that Sweden does not support implementing tighter financial sanctions on Iran and that more stringent financial standards could hurt Swedish exports,” one cable reported. Other cables quoted Swedish officials as saying they were powerless to order banks in their country to stop doing business with Tehran.

Sweden’s foreign trade minister, Ewa Bjroling, met with State officials and said even though her government was obeying all existing United Nations and European Union sanctions, “Iran is a major problem for the GOS (Government of Sweden) because Swedish businesses have a long-standing commercial relationship in the trucks and telecom industries.”

Eventually, Swedish Foreign Affairs Minister Carl Bildt — Mrs. Clinton’s equal on the diplomatic stage — delivered the message personally to top State Department officials, who described him as “skeptical” about expanded Iran sanctions.

“Overall, I’m not a fan of sanctions because they are more a demonstration of our inability than our ability,” Mr. Bildt was quoted as telling State officials in a cable marked “secret.”

When Mr. Obama planned to meet with Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt in late 2009, the State Department described Sweden as having been a behind-the-scenes obstructionist to new Iran sanctions. “Sweden has hampered EU efforts to impose additional sanctions,” a State Department memo to the president warned.

Swedish government officials declined to address their back-channel overtures to Mrs. Clinton’s department. “Discussions leading to decisions on sanctions are internal and should remain so,” said Mats Samuelsson, a spokesman with the Swedish Embassy in Washington. “Sweden fully implements all U.N. and EU sanctions by which Sweden is bound.”

The U.S. is allowed to penalize foreign firms — even if they are incorporated in countries that are U.S. allies — under the Iran Sanctions Act (ISA). Beginning in 2010, the Obama administration stepped up U.S. efforts to use ISA authorities to discourage investment in Iran and to impose sanctions on companies that insisted on continuing their business with Iran, according to a Congressional Research Service (CRS) report.

The State Department is required to report to Congress on ISA matters, which should be done every six months. The State report typically covers U.S. diplomatic concerns over which companies and countries may be interfering with U.S. policy by continuing their investments in Iran — much like the concerns that were coming out of Stockholm.

However, the State Department was slow in delivering its reports to Congress and placing them in the Federal Register as required by Section 5e of the ISA, which drew the concern of lawmakers that State wasn’t moving fast enough on making its sanction recommendations prior to the 2011-2012 formal announcements.

In February 2010, Mrs. Clinton testified before the House Foreign Affairs Committee that the State Department’s ISA preliminary review was completed in early February and that some of the cases reviewed “deserve more consideration” and were undergoing additional scrutiny. The preliminary review, according to the testimony, was conducted, in part, through State Department officials’ contacts with their counterpart officials abroad and corporation officials.

That preliminary review hasn’t been made public, and the first like-report was posted to the Federal Registrar in 2012 with no company names specifically mentioned.

Current State Department officials and outside experts who advised the department on Iran sanctions told The Times that Sweden, and more specifically Ericsson, was a matter of internal discussion from 2009 to 2011 before new sanctions were finally issued. “The Ericsson concerns were well-known, but in the end many of the sanction decisions were arbitrary and often involved issues beyond the actual business transactions,” one adviser directly involved in the talks told The Times, speaking only on the condition of anonymity because he was describing private deliberations.

U.S. intelligence officials told The Times that they kept the Obama administration apprised of Ericsson’s activities inside Iran, including the fact that the Swedish firm had provided Iran’s second-largest cellular provider with location-based technology to track customers for billing purposes. The technology transfer occurred in late 2009, shortly after Tehran brutally suppressed a pro-democracy movement in that country, the officials said.

U.S. intelligence further learned that Ericsson in 2010 discussed with Iran’s largest cellular firm providing tracking technology that could be used directly by Iranian security authorities but never formally pursued the contract, officials said.

State officials declined to say whether Ericsson ever appeared on any preliminary sanctions lists, but they described a process for each sanction decision that involved input from the Treasury Department, the CIA, the Commerce Department and State. During those deliberations, there was a propensity to give extra consideration to companies promoting telecommunications technology inside Iran, the officials explained.

The reason, one official said, was that these companies were seen to be providing something that might help average Iranians stay in contact with the rest of the world. More specifically, the official said, such technology might help them circumvent the draconian censorship measures being taken by Tehran’s government.

Swedish trade with Iran continued undeterred.

Swedish-based Ericsson and Volvo continued their business in Iran during this heightened period of scrutiny — even as other international companies started ending their relationships.

Ericsson has sold telecommunications infrastructure and related products to three Iranian firms: MCCI, MTN IranCell and Rightel. Volvo is the leading heavy truck company in Iran. U.S. senators have specifically raised concerns about the technology Ericsson was providing to Iran.

The company told The Times that it did, in fact, provide a location-based customer-tracking hub to MTN IranCell in 2009 but that it did not believe the system could be misused by Iranian security authorities to track dissidents because its location tracking wasn’t real-time and instead was aimed at facilitating billing.

“We have sold a location-based charging (LBC) to MTN IranCell,” Ericsson spokeswoman Karin Hallstan said. “LBC is used by operators all over the world as a market segmentation tool in order to charge customers differently depending on where they are located. Ericsson is unaware of authorities in any country using LBC as an active monitoring tool, not least as typically this is not open to real-time analysis.”

The company said it also pitched a tracking system specifically for Iran’s security agencies to mobile operator MCCI to determine the scope of their requirements. But it never bid or won such a deal, company officials said.

Ericsson, for its part, believes the sale of telecommunications equipment in Iran may foster a democratic state — and help human rights issues.

Ericsson strongly believes telecommunication contributes to a more open and democratic society, and we believe that the people of Iran have gained from having access to this technology,” Ms. Hallstan said.

The telecommunications giant didn’t make any contributions to the Swedish fundraising entity set up by Mr. Clinton, but it did pay the former president a record $750,000 for a speech in Hong Kong in November 2011, just weeks after Mrs. Clinton released the first sanctions list that excluded Ericsson and other Swedish firms.

“The investment was significant but should be seen in light of [Mr. Clinton‘s] perceived crowd pull, the location (far to travel to Hong Kong) and an engagement that spanned two days,” Ms. Hallstan said. “The conversation regarding Iran that you refer to had no impact on this decision and was not considered by the event team.”

Ms. Hallstan said Ericsson started paying an annual membership fee to the Clinton Global Initiative in 2010 and is supporting a joint effort with Refugees United to help missing families reconnect with loved ones.

The company says it intends to continue pursuing opportunities with Tehran.

Ericsson intends to continue to engage with existing customers and explore opportunities with new customers in Iran while continuously monitoring international developments as they relate to Iran and its government,” Ms. Hallstan said. “As a company present in 180 countries, we are sometimes asked to provide factual input regarding countries we operate in.”

After the U.S. announced its sanctions list in 2011 and 2012 — which included no Swedish companies — the Clinton Foundation Insamlingsstiftelse saw an uptick in its fundraising, from about $3 million in 2011 to $9 million in 2012 to $14 million in 2013, according to data released by the Swedish Svensk Insamlings Kontroll.

Two months after the second sanctions list was released, Mrs. Clinton made her first trip to Sweden as secretary of state to attend a Climate & Clean Air Coalition forum.

When Mr. Clinton set up his Swedish fundraising arm in 2011, he turned to one of the former first family’s longtime confidants: Mrs. Clinton’s former Arkansas law partner Bruce Lindsey.

The entity was essentially a fundraising shell, having no employees or contractors in Sweden, and it was governed by a board with six directors: Mr. Clinton’s two close aides in retirement, Doug Band and Mr. Lindsey; the foundation’s chief financial officer, Andrew Kessell; Swedish lawyer Jan Lombach; German media mogul Karl-Heinz Kogel; and British financier Barry Townsley.

Mr. Townsley was a public figure in the 2006-2007 “pay for peerage” scandal that rocked the British government and tarnished the reputation of Tony Blair months before he left office as prime minister.

A House of Commons report concluded that Mr. Townsley, a successful stockbroker and generous philanthropist, provided a 1 million pound loan in 2005 to the ruling Labor Party and received a peerage nomination from Mr. Blair’s government. Mr. Townsley eventually declined the peerage appointment, saying the publicity had intruded on his privacy. He and other businessmen who made similar loans and were nominated for peerages were never charged with any wrongdoing, but the controversy tarnished Mr. Blair’s tenure.

Mr. Townsley told The Times that Mr. Clinton called him personally to ask him to serve on the Swedish entity’s board, and there were never any issues raised with him about the British patronage scandal.

He described himself as “a non-exec director,” saying he never got paid, never raised any money, never attended any functions for the Swedish entity and didn’t even get financial reports about the group’s activities.

He said he did not believe the past controversy in Britain should have any bearing on his relationship with the Clintons, which began in 1999. “There was nothing to it, and the investigation went away. Nothing to be investigated,” Mr. Townsley said.

The incorporation documents for Clinton Foundation Insamlingsstiftelse say “fundraising is the Swedish foundation’s only purpose,” and its annual reports show a total of $26 million raised since 2011. The Swedish documents disclose only a few sources of incoming donations, with the largest being the Nationale Postcode Loterij with about $5 million donated in 2012 and 2013 and the Swedish Postcode Lottery with about $4 million donated in that same time frame.

Mr. Clinton set up the Clinton Foundation Insamlingsstiftelse to become a direct recipient of the funds from the Swedish Postcode Lottery, rather than having to go through an intermediary organization to get the contributions, according to a Clinton Foundation official.

“Under Swedish lottery legislation, an organization must be registered in Sweden to receive funds directly from the Swedish Postcode Lottery,” said Roger Magergard, a spokesman for the lottery.

He added: “The partnership with Clinton Foundation Sweden is ongoing. The Swedish Postcode Lottery has 53 beneficiaries, and the cooperation with all organizations continues until either the beneficiary or the lottery decides to end the cooperation.”

In 2011, Sweden changed its giving laws to allow “little-brother” foundations, such as the Clinton Foundation Sweden, to operate in the country and broadened the issues those foundations could collect money for, explained Filip Wijkstrom, a director at the Stockholm School of Economics, who has studied Swedish foundations and nonprofits.

That same year, Sweden changed its tax laws so that individuals could get small tax breaks on their charitable contributions and companies could deduct some donations as business expenditures.

 

[by Kelly Riddell, writing for THE WASHINGTON TIMES]

 

NORM ‘n’ AL Note:  If America decides to elect Hillary Clinton as its next president, it will get Obama 2.0.  It will also get Billary Clinton in the White House. We already know how Bill treated the office he was elected to…and he was impeached. Obama and the Clintons think they are giving America the best politicians money can buy…and that is precisely why America does not need them.

 

……………………………………..

 

As always, posted for your edification and enlightenment by

NORM ‘n’ AL, Minneapolis
normal@usa1usa.com
612.239.0970

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Clinton-Obama Benghazi story refuted by detailed Defense Department report

At the same time Obama, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and other top leaders were blaming spontaneous protests for the deadly Benghazi attack, the Defense Department broadly circulated a detailed intelligence report that said an al Qaeda-linked group planned the assault 10 days beforehand.

Its goal was to kill as many Americans as possible.

The Defense Intelligence Agency report is contained in a trove of previously classified documents that the government watchdog group Judicial Watch forced the Obama administration to release under court order.

On another terrorism development that has wide implications today, one DIA report in August 2012 predicted the rise of the Islamic State, which was then emerging in Syria. It now controls wide sections of eastern Syria and northern and western Iraq, and is committing mass slaughter of Christians, Kurds and Muslims of rival sects or clans.

Mr. Obama downplayed the Islamic State as the “JV” in January 2014 when the terrorist army made its first incursions into western Iraq.

Judicial Watch said in a statement that the Benghazi documents are clear evidence that Mr. Obama and his aides lied to the American public two months before the November elections. Amid poor security, the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on the U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya, killed Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and an aide. Terrorists later attacked a nearby CIA base, killing two former Navy SEALs serving as a security detail.

Judicial Watch previously forced the administration to release a chain of emails that revealed the tortured process by which White House and State Department political appointees took the CIA’s draft report on the attack and changed it to say the carnage was caused by spontaneous demonstrations over an American-made anti-Islam video.

On Sept. 16, the same date as the DIA report, Susan E. Rice, who then was U.S. ambassador to the United Nations and now is national security adviser, went on Sunday political talk shows and blamed the attack on protesters angered by the video.

The administration could argue this point: The final CIA “talking points” paper was approved Sept. 15. The DIA report saying an al Qaeda-linked group carried out the attack was dated Sept. 16.

But Judicial Watch argues that the information contained in the DIA report was obtained as of Sept. 12, the day after the attack.

The president and Mrs. Clinton took days more to concede that the attack was terrorism and not a protest gone violent. Mr. Obama cited the video later that month in a speech to the U.N.

Matt Olsen, who was serving as director of the National Counterterrorism Center, became the first administration official to publicly call the attacks terrorism, on Sept. 19.  Mrs. Clinton followed suit the next day. But Obama, on that same day, was asked at a town hall meeting about the attack and declined to label it terrorism.

The White House on Tuesday did not respond to a query about the Judicial Watch findings.

Subsequent congressional hearings showed the Benghazi post was on a hit list compiled by terrorists who wanted to rid the city of all Western organizations. The hearings showed that Mr. Stevens repeatedly asked for more security but was rebuffed by Washington.

The Washington Times first reported in October 2012 that a defense intelligence report existed and that it blamed al Qaeda for the Benghazi attack shortly afterward.

The DIA papers obtained by Judicial Watch say the al Qaeda-linked group, Brigades of the Captive Omar Abdul Rahman, claimed responsibility. Rahman is known as the “blind sheikh,” and was convicted and imprisoned for his role in the first World Trade Center attack. The organization is linked to Ansar al-Sharia, a Libyan terrorist group that also took part in the attack on the diplomatic outpost.

“The attack was planned ten or more days prior on approximately 01 September 2012,” the defense report said. “The intention was to attack the consulate and to kill as many Americans as possible to seek revenge for the U.S. killing of [an al Qaeda commander] in Pakistan and in memorial of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center buildings.”

Even more revealing is that the DIA concluded that al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahri was involved. He sent Abdul Baset Azuz, the brigades leader, to Libya to set up an al Qaeda terrorist cell.

“It was stated that Azuz was not a charismatic leader but rather just a violent radical,” the DIA said.

Tom Fitton, Judicial Watch president, called the DIA documents “jaw dropping.” His group sued the administration under the Freedom of Information Act.

“No wonder we had to file more FOIA lawsuits and wait over two years for them,” he said. “If the American people had known the truth — that Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and other top administration officials knew that the Benghazi attack was an al Qaeda terrorist attack from the get-go — and yet lied and covered this fact up — Mitt Romney might very well be president.”

Mr. Fitton said the documents “show that the Benghazi cover-up has continued for years and is only unraveling through our independent lawsuits. The Benghazi scandal just got a whole lot worse for Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.”

The DIA report said Azuz quickly established an al Qaeda headquarters in eastern Libya and obtained Russian-designed shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles.

Another document states that the Muslim Brotherhood was allied with al Qaeda in trying to bring down the Bashar Assad regime in Syria. At the time, Mr. Obama supported the elected Muslim Brotherhood government in Egypt, which was later deposed by the military.

“Why would the Obama administration continue to support the Muslim Brotherhood even after it knew it was tied to the Benghazi terrorist attack and to al Qaeda?” Mr. Fitton said.

The Judicial Watch documents also show that the administration was aware of a major arms trafficking network in Libya that took government missiles and guns and shipped them to Islamists in Syria.

There is no indication that the CIA was involved, as some observers asserted.

On the Islamic State, the DIA said in August 2012 that the terrorist army “could also declare an Islamic State throughout its union with other terrorist organizations in Iraq and Syria, which will create grave danger in regards to unifying Iraq and the protection of its territory.”

[by Rowan Scarborough, writing for The Washington Times]

NORM ‘n’ AL Note:  As all of America knows by now, the only “JV team” that really is one is the team in the White House. Biggest bunch of bunglers ever to assume they could lead the USA.

………………………………………

As always, posted for your edification and enlightenment by

NORM ‘n’ AL, Minneapolis
normal@usa1usa.com
612.239.0970

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Perfect illustration of just how far from reality the White House — and many in Congress — are operating…

Star members of the government's Reality Team...

Harry Reid says “Obama – Reid team is the greatest in US history.”

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid said Friday his partnership with President Obama will go down in history.

“The record book that records will be written about the eight years of Obama and Reid, never in the history of the country — never in the history of the country — have we produced more for a president and somebody that’s led his party than we’ve done together,” Mr. Reid said Friday on KNPR radio.

Mr. Reid, who announced he will not be running for re-election in 2016, was greeted with what was apparently a surprise call from Mr. Obama during the appearance.

Harry, this is Barack,” the president said.

“Well, I’ll be damned,” Mr. Reid said. “I’ll be damned.”

Mr. Obama then asked if he was allowed to say that on live radio, to which Mr. Reid replied: “Well, I’ll be damned. What a guy.”

“I think that when the story is written and when all is told, you’re gonna have somebody who has done more for Nevada and for this country as anybody who’s ever been in the Senate, and I could not be prouder of him — he did an unbelievable job on a whole bunch of really tough issues,” Mr. Obama said. “Saving this country from a depression, making sure millions of people had health care, makin’ sure that young people were able to go to college and he’s been one of my best partners and best friends and I’m really honored to have served him.”

Mr. Reid assured the president the feeling was mutual.

“We’ve done it as friends, we’ve done it as people who love our country. We love it as a couple of people who have backgrounds that are so unusual,” Mr. Reid said. “How in the world did Obama and Reid get to where they are? We talked last night — I have so much affection and admiration for Barack Obama, that we’ve proven that to each other, our mutual affection, and we have 22 more months to continue doing the best we can for our country.”

“That’s what we’re gonna do,” Mr. Obama said.

 

[by David Sherfinski, writing for The Washington Times]

 

NORM ‘n’ AL Note:  We’ve heard everything now, folks. The last 6+ years with Obama at the helm have been some of the best years in the history of the country. Do you believe it? Do you believe they have the gall to even THINK that? Over six years of deadlock in Congress, with Reid stacking bills on his desk rather than bringing them to a vote. (Don’t want to actually pass something the Republicans might be able to take some credit for, do we?) Adding not billions, but trillions, of dollars to the US debt. (No matter. It’s only paper, you know.)  Spending more than forty million (40 MILLION) dollars on Obama and family vacations. (How much did the average American get to spend on vacations? Nothing. Nothing at all. We didn’t take vacations. We were too busy trying to find jobs and keep a roof over our heads.)  Opening our southern border to illegal aliens by the thousands, so they could stay here, get steady jobs, and hopefully vote Democratic in upcoming elections. (The 2014 election showed just how well that theory worked, with Republicans taking over the Senate, the House, and a majority of governorships.) Pulling all our troops out of Iraq on a pre-announced schedule so the radical Islamists could move in right behind us. (The Islamic State now controls huge swaths of the entire Middle East, thanks to the opening we gave them in Iraq.)  Shoving Obamacare down our throats whether we wanted it or not, so that a small minority of Americans could finally get some healthcare by paying too much for it.  Spending US taxpayer money in Israel to defeat the Prime Minister, who was running for re-election.  (Another really good idea from Obonehead in the Oval Office.  Mr. Netanyahu won by a substantial margin, and the White House appeared dumber than ever.)  So…brace yourselves, folks. That wonderful White House team, led by you-know-who, wants to bring you another “twenty-two months of the best we can do for our country.”  May God help us…because He is our only chance.

 

As always, posted for your edification and enlightenment by

NORM ‘n’ AL, Minneapolis
normal@usa1usa.com
612.239.0970

 

 

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized