Wednesday, March 19, 2014
Hmm: Hillary The Butcher of Benghazi, Camp Claims Zero Emails Exist Between Top Spokesman and Reporters
Via America Rising, a very curious assertion by Team Hillary buried within theAssociated Press' sweeping review of the Obama administration's steep descent into secrecy. Before we get to the controversy involving Clintonworld, here's theAP's lede on what has become of Barack Obama's transparency "touchstone:"
The Obama administration has a way to go to fulfill its promises from Day 1 to become the most transparent administration in history. More often than ever, the administration censored government files or outright denied access to them last year under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act, cited more legal exceptions it said justified withholding materials and refused a record number of times to turn over files quickly that might be especially newsworthy, according to a new analysis of federal data by The Associated Press. Most agencies also took longer to answer records requests. The government's own figures from 99 federal agencies covering six years show that halfway through its second term, the administration has made few meaningful improvements in the way it releases records. In category after category...the government's efforts to be more open about its activities last year were their worst since President Barack Obama took office.
More censorship, less responsiveness, longer FOIA wait times -- and it's gotten worse. This president is a fraud. But that's old news. Obama is unpopular, he'slost independents, and he's on the fast track to lame duck status. But she who would be queen is another story. Charles Krauthammer has long discussed the administration's successful and ongoing stonewall on the Benghazi massacre, but that matter doesn't appear to be the only front on which Clinton's protectors are fogging over details. Hmmm:
Sometimes, the government said it searched and couldn’t find what citizens wanted…Likewise, [John] Cook, departing as the editor at Gawker, was exasperated when the State Department told him it couldn’t find any emails between journalists and Philippe Reines, Hillary Clinton’s personal spokesman when Clinton was secretary of state. … “They said there were no records,” Cook said of the State Department.
Really? State is claiming they can't produce a single email between Sec. Clinton's personal spokesperson during her entire tenure? Even when we havethis email trail in which Reines memorably told a Buzzfeed reporter to "f***off" over Benghazi questions? America Rising offers the following challenge to other reporters: "We’ve got one question for journalists: do you have any emails with Reines Clinton’s Department claimed never existed?" It's a good question. Meanwhile, ABC News is reporting that officials at Bill Clinton's presidential library "can't find" a cache of cassette tapes containing private conversations between Clinton and top aides during his time in the Oval Office. Is Team Clinton culling and sanitizing the official record in advance of Hillary's rumored 2016 run? I'll leave you with this:
ARLINGTON, Va. -- Hillary Clinton’s name won’t be on any ballot in November, but that doesn’t mean you won’t see her supporters hit the campaign trail this year.
Ready for Hillary, the political action committee that hopes to lay the groundwork for Clinton’s second presidential run, plans to help candidates for Congress, governor, state legislatures, even local offices in the off-year elections that don’t garner much enthusiasm.
The group expects to knock on doors, make phone calls, send out emails soliciting donations and register people to vote in support of any candidates that Clinton endorses. It will tap into Ready for Hillary’s own list of nearly 2 million supporters.
“Folks that don’t typically come out in 2014 are coming out because Ready for Hillary is taking the energy around her and her potential candidacy and giving them something to do today,” said Adam Parkhomenko, a former Clinton campaign staffer and now executive director of Ready for Hillary.
Already, the group has started holding campaign events across the nation that offer 2014 candidates an opportunity to meet Clinton supporters.
Next week, it will hold events with Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., and Rep. Tim Ryan, D-Ohio. Future events are planned for Sacramento, Calif., Raleigh, N.C., and Kansas City, Mo.
“We hope that you will play a role in helping Democrats come out on top,” Ready for Hillary sent in an email to supporters.
Clinton is widely expected to endorse candidates later in the year. Former President Bill Clintonhas already campaigned for Sen. Mark Pryor, D-Ark., and Democrat Alison Lundergan Grimes, who is running against Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.
The traditional Democratic groups working on 2014 elections say they welcome the help in a crucial year where their party is trying to keep a slim majority in the Senate, as well as hold onto seats in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives. In addition, 36 states will hold governor’s races and nearly all 50 will have state legislative elections.
Matt Canter, deputy executive director of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, which is dedicated to keeping a Democratic Senate, said it’s “terrific” that Ready for Hillary is conveying to supporters that the fight right now is for Congress.
But privately some Democrats say they worry that resources, most importantly contributions, will be sent to Ready for Hillary, instead of a group solely dedicated to the 2014 elections. And they hope Ready for Hillary’s core mission of supporting Clinton in 2016 doesn’t distract from the midterm elections.
“Elections this year should be the focus,” said Lou D’Allesandro, a veteran state senator and Democratic operative from New Hampshire. “Let’s not put the cart before the horse.”
Priorities USA, one of the Democrats’ richest political action committees, had indicated it would sit out the 2014 races and hold onto its money for Clinton’s expected, but not certain, run for the White House in 2016. Stung by criticism, the group recently asked its donors to contribute to congressional races.
Kirsten Kukowski, a spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee, said it appears that outside groups, including Ready for Hillary, are merely trying to fill a void left by a “nonexistent”Democratic National Committee, which is nearly $16 million in debt. In recent weeks, the DNC has announced plans to ramp up its efforts to support Democrats running for office up and down the ballot.
Former advisers formed Ready for Hillary last year _ just after Clinton stepped down as secretary of state _ as a way to recruit volunteers across the nation for a potential campaign.
Clinton, 66, said she expects to decide later this year whether to run in 2016. “It’s such a difficult decision, and it’s one that I’m not going to rush into,” she said late last year on the ABC News special “Barbara Walters Presents: The 10 Most Fascinating People of 2013.”
The former first lady, U.S. senator from New York and secretary of state is already the presumed front-runner for her party’s nomination in 2016, dominating the potential field of candidates by huge margins.
If she runs for president, Clinton could benefit from having helped Democrats in 2014. But her image could take a hit if Democrats incur significant losses. Democratic political consultant Drew Lieberman said he sees no downside to capitalizing on enthusiasm for Clinton to help candidates this year.
“They’re aren’t many national figures as popular as her,” he said. “Anybody should be getting as much Hillary Clinton as they can right now.”
Clinton’s approval rating in some polls is 10 points higher than President Barack Obama’s, who has seen his numbers plunge after a string of political setbacks. Among them: the chaotic start to the federal health care law and his response to international developments, such as the ongoing civil war in Syria and the Russian military move into Crimea.
Some candidates are already distancing themselves from Obama in places that Clinton remains popular.
D’Allesandro, who supports another potential candidate for 2016, Vice President Joe Biden, said he already has asked Clinton to help re-elect Sen. Jeanne Shaheen. D-N.H., whose husband was Clinton’s state chairman in 2008.
Last year, Ready for Hillary backed two successful candidates _ Gov. Terry McAuliffe of Virginia and Mayor Bill de Blasio of New York _ who was endorsed by both Clintons. McAuliffe, one of their friends, served as chairman of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, while de Blasio served as her Senate campaign manager in 2000.
In the weeks leading to McAuliffe’s election, the group dispatched its own staff to knock on doors, sent out a flurry of emails urging supporters to volunteer and vote, and helped collect $100,000 for his campaign, according to Parkhomenko. It sent out an email for de Blasio.
This year, Ready for Hillary plans to promote Clinton’s policy positions _ from voting rights, same-sex marriage and a rewrite of the nation’s immigration laws _ and follow her around on her widely expected tour after the release of her memoir. It also expects to echo her endorsements.
“Hillary Clinton knows how important these elections are,” Parkhomenko said.
Kathy Sullivan, a Democratic activist who was a Clinton co-chair in New Hampshire in 2008, praised Ready for Hillary for their efforts this year.
“Anything we can do to get more people involved,” she said. “There are so many (people) that might not give to the Democratic Party but will give to Ready for Hillary.”
Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2014/03/17/6244124/hillary-clinton-supporters-to.html#storylink=cpy
Monday, March 17, 2014
Friday, March 14, 2014
We the people and the serious business of cleaning house. Insisting on hearing the truth about Benghazi would be a good place to start The Benghazi Difference?
Sean Smith, a 34-year-old information management officer…emailed a friend: “Assuming we don’t die tonight. We saw one of our ‘police’ that guard the compound taking pictures.” Hours later, he was dead.—Chris Stephen “US consulate attack in Benghazi: a challenge to official version of events”
...we have four dead Americans. Whether it was because of a protest or because guys outside for a walk one night decided togo kill some Americans. What difference at this point does it make?” —Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
“I’d like to convey the following message to Obama. Listen, Obama: We are Egyptian women. You are listen, Obama? Shut up your mouth, Obama. Shut up your mouth, Obama! Our message to you, you donkey: No matter what you do, we will not restore the ousted president [‘Muslim Brotherhood’ leader Mohammed Morsi].”—Anonymous Egyptian woman on viral video
Morsi].”—Anonymous Egyptian woman on viral video
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s Kabuki theater performance last year of fauxoutrage was one for the books, no doubt. On second thought…perhaps it was notphony outrage after all: how dare the Senate question her—her. The nerve.
In any event, not only did she dutifully provide the various media propaganda outlets with an emotive performance worthy of Hitler (”The indignation. And then, the tears in her eyes....”), but along the way she managed to plant not just one, but two, red herrings designed to mislead and misdirect: that is, the Benghazi attacks were the result of (1) protests, or (2) guys out for a walk.
Alas for Ms. Clinton, neither of her red herrings stands up to much scrutiny. Perhaps if they did it would indeed not make much of a difference which one caused the attacks in Benghazi on 9/11/12—but the real reason(s) make a great deal of difference.
Would you say that an element within the US government aiding and abetting America’s enemies during a time of war makes a difference? I would, and essentially that is what we are dealing with here.
I am not referring to the arms shipments to the Syrian rebels that were funneled from Libya via Turkey and Lebanon (although that is, or rather should be, of great concern to Congress). What I am chiefly concerned with is the aborted prisoner swap of Ambassador Stevens for “Muslim Brotherhood” icon Sheikh Omar abdel Rahman (the “Blind Sheikh”)—currently serving a life sentence in the US for his role in the deadly1993 WTC bombing.
For those of you who may not know, the imprisonment of the “Blind Sheikh” is very much a cause célèbre amongst Muslims, at least among its more radical factions. For example, according to a “CBS News” article:
Al Qaeda’s current leader, Ayman Al-Zawahri, has repeatedly invoked Rahman [the “Blind Sheikh”] as a reason for kidnapping and killing Westerners. In an undated two-hour videotape posted last October on militant forums, he said that abducting nationals of “countries waging wars on Muslims” is the only way to free “our captives, and Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman.”
In the months leading up to the 9/11/12 attack in Benghazi there were numerous disturbances tied directly to the imprisonment of Rahman. (In fact the riot in Cairo that occurred just prior to the Benghazi attacks, and was blamed on a video, was originally a “Free Rahman” rally that was hijacked by thugs supposedly irate over said video). In an article posted in early July 2012 (”Outrage builds as Egypt presses for release of blind sheik behind ‘93 WTC attack”), Perry Chiaramonte reported that:
In Cairo, President-elect Mohamed Morsi proclaimed to hundreds of thousands of supporters in Tahir Square on Friday that he will gain the release of Rahman…. “It’s disgusting for a head of government to state in his inaugural speech that a man who attempted to commit mass murder should be freed,” Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., told FoxNews.com. “The fact that he said this in his first speech says to me that this is from the heart….”
If you are unaware of former Egyptian President Morsi’s ties to the “Muslim Brotherhood” (MB), or the MB’s history of Islamic jihad (both the overt and stealth varieties), then I suggest that you get cracking on your homework—time’s a wastin’. You might want to research the MB/CIA connection and/or the MB/Obama connectionwhile you’re at it. Keep in mind that there is a plethora of inaccurate and misleading information on the Web—caveat emptor.
The idea that Morsi and the MB were involved with the attacks in Benghazi is nothing new. Flames were still smoldering and smoke wafting when Walid Shoebat posted a video made during the attack which had one of the attackers shouting ”Don’t Shoot us! We were sent by Morsi!” Egyptian Cynthia Farahat has pointed out that the words were spoken “in the dialect of Upper Egypt.”
We are dealing here with the plaintive cry of someone who was expecting a cakewalk, being confronted with deadly armed resistance courtesy of former SEALs Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods. That was not the way things were supposed to go down. (A third man, David Ubben, a State Department diplomatic security agent, was severely injured while on the rooftop with Woods and Doherty, but he, like all of the other survivors of the Benghazi attack, has been muzzled and hidden away by the Obama Administration—now why would the Obama Administration do that do you suppose)?
Articles suggesting that the Benghazi attacks were the result of a kidnapping attemptgone awry began surfacing not long after 9/11/12. The scenario was this: with the collusion of certain elements within the US government, Ambassador Stevens was to be kidnapped and held in ransom for the “Blind Sheikh.” In due time Stevens would be exchanged for Rahman, and everyone goes home happy. Morsi is happy, Rahman is happy, Obama is happy, Clinton is happy…everybody’s happy, happy, happy. Except it didn’t work out that way—darn SEALs.
Initially I treated the Stevens/Rahman swap as nothing more than an interesting possibility—but then as the Obama Administration’s stonewalling became ever more frantic and grim, I began to think that the kidnapping/swap scenario was more and more probable. I am now (after a lot of sifting wheat from chaff) at the point where I consider it to be a certainty.
Perhaps the biggest factor in my coming to accept the veracity of the Stevens/Rahman swap scenario has been its acceptance by Four-Star Admiral James “Ace” Lyons (USN ret). Among his many accomplishments, ADM Lyons was Commander in Chief of the US Pacific Fleet (“the largest single military command in the world”), and you can believe me when I tell you that the US Navy does not hand out four stars and command of its Pacific Fleet to just anyone that comes down the pike.
I do not personally know ADM Lyons, but I think that one can safely assume that he is a no nonsense hard charger, with both feet planted firmly on the ground (or sea, as the case may be). In short, when ADM Lyons says that the Benghazi attack on 9/11/12 was the result of a plan to swap Ambassador Stevens for the “Blind Sheikh,” I would say that you can take that to the bank.
Although ADM Lyons is retired, I believe that I am not going out on a limb when I say that he is still plugged into a network of “movers and shakers” in the know. He would not have made the claims that he has regarding Benghazi unless he was d—n good and sure that they were legit.
In a recent article by him sub-titled “The event was no surprise, and the massive cover-up appalls,” ADM Lyons writes:
According to my source’s in-country contacts, there never was any intention to kill Stevens. He was supposed to be kidnapped and held as a hostage in exchange for the release of the blind sheik, Omar Abdel Rahman. It should be recalled that this was the No. 1 objective of then-Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi in his Washington visit in 2012.
In an interview held a little over a year ago, ADM Lyons explained when and where he first went public with his beliefs regarding the attempted kidnapping—it was on the “Lou Dobbs Tonight” television show:
Lou asked me, “What do [you] think went on? What [do you] suspect happened?” I said, “Well, if I had to speculate, I believe this was a bungled…kidnapping attack, to kidnap Ambassador Stevens, and hold him in exchange for the Blind Sheikh.” You know there’s been a lot of pressure, certainly from Morsi; that’s one of his objectives, to get the Blind Sheikh released. Now, again, [Dobbs] asked me what I thought, and I speculated, because nothing else made sense to me. We know that Ambassador Stevens was concerned over his safety there. I mean, why would he stay there—first of all, why was he even there on the night of 9/11/12? You have the significance of the date of 9/11—most places, people hunker down. Then we had a lot of not only tactical, but strategic warning of this attack.
The Obama Administration (with the all too willing collusion of “journalistic” propaganda outlets) has surrounded the Benghazi story with lies, obfuscations, and blatant cover-ups, all designed to muddy the waters and hide the truth—and Congress will not ferret out the truth unless “we the people” hold their feet to the fire, and do it with a will.
What we have in the “Beltway Bubble” these days is a viper’s nest of traitors. To paraphrase Sir John Harrington: when a government is permeated with treasonous behavior from top to bottom, who is going to call it treason?
I have neither the time nor space to connect the dots right now regarding the ongoing stealth jihad underway in the good ol’ US of A. Suffice it to say that America has had the wool pulled over its eyes for some time, and unless “we the people” tear off our blindfold, we will wake up to find that we are in the same situation as “Eurabia,” and I don’t know about you, but “Amerabia” is not the country that I want to pass on to future generations.
The approval ratings for Congress are consistently at all time lows, and yet these arrogant, duplicitous, ineffectual buffoons keep on getting elected, and reelected, and reelected, and…and whose fault is that, really?
At some point “we the people” have to stop pointing our fingers at “them,” and put the responsibility for the mess our country is in upon our own shoulders, and be about the serious business of cleaning house. Insisting on hearing the truth about Benghazi would be a good place to start.
Tuesday, March 11, 2014
Hillary Clinton campaign got illicit funds from D.C. scandal figure Terry McAuliffe, now Va. governor, was Clinton campaign chairman at time.
Despite Hillary Rodham Clinton’s promise that she had scrubbed illegal cash contributions from her 2008 presidential campaign, prosecutors revealed Monday that the mastermind of Mayor Vincent C. Gray’s “shadow campaign” also funneled hundreds of thousands of dollars to aid Mrs. Clinton’s bid for the White House.
Jeffrey E. Thompson’s scheme included diverting more than $608,000 in illicit funds to a New York marketing executive, Troy White, who organized “street teams” to raise Mrs. Clinton’s visibility in urban areas during her Democratic primary battle against Barack Obama. Mr. White pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor in the case.
Prosecutors said that from February to May 2008, Thompson used two firms to disburse $608,750 in “excessive and unreported contributions to pay for campaign services in coordination with and in support of a federal political candidate for president of the United States and the federal and the candidate’s authorized committee.” That candidate was Mrs. Clinton.
Mr. Obama, too, received thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from Thompson and his employees, although those donations apparently were legal.
U.S. Attorney Ron Machen said there was no indication that Mrs. Clinton was aware of the specific activities to aid her campaign.
“There are varying degrees of knowledge among the different candidates,” Mr. Machen said.
An attorney for Mrs. Clinton’s campaign in 2008, Lyn Utrecht, has said the campaign cooperated fully with prosecutors and never hired Mr. White to work on the presidential race. She said the campaign committee “turned down Mr. White’s services.”
But news reports last fall indicated that a top Clinton adviser, Minyon Moore, facilitated a meeting between Mr. White and Thompson. Ms. Utrecht did not return a request for comment Monday, nor did Mrs. Clinton’s top spokesman, Philippe Reines.
Mrs. Clinton’s campaign chairman at the time was Terry McAuliffe, now governor of Virginia. Mr. McAuliffe’s gubernatorial campaign said last year that it would not return a $2,500 donation that Thompson made in 2009.
The revelations are raising untimely, for Mrs. Clinton, reminders of fundraising improprieties just as her supporters are gearing up for a probable run for the presidency in 2016.
In 2007, when Mrs. Clinton was considered the front-runner for the Democratic nomination, she took the unprecedented step of returning $850,000 in contributions raised by Norman Hsu, a top campaign bundler who was wanted on criminal charges in a multimillion-dollar Ponzi scheme. At the time, Clinton campaign officials said they would undertake “vigorous” extra vetting procedures to make sure her sources of campaign funds were legitimate.
In 2009, a federal judge sentenced Hsu to more than 24 years in prison for violating campaign finance laws and defrauding investors.
The Hsu scandal, in turn, brought unwelcome reminders for Mrs. Clinton of her husband’s fundraising controversies in the 1990s, including Little Rock businessman Charlie Trie. In that episode, about $640,000 was returned or refused after accusations that Trie funneled fraudulent donations.
There was also the case of businessman Johnny Chung, in which the Democratic National Committee returned more than $360,000 in donations raised during President Clinton’s 1996 re-election bid. Chung admitted that he accepted some of the money from Chinese military officials.
Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/mar/10/hillary-clinton-campaign-received-funds-jeffrey-th/#ixzz2vgrJwgtR
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter