07/13/16

CCB Press Conference on Benghazi Proves Dereliction of Duty [Video]

By: Roger Aronoff | Accuracy in Media

Benghazi

The Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi (CCB) recently held a press conference and issued a report uncovering new details about the events leading up to and during the September 11, 2012 attacks in Libya that took the lives of four Americans. However, the press has done what it usually does when a story threatens the narrative or reputation of the administration of President Barack Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton—they have, for the most part, ignored or misrepresented the CCB’s findings.

The speakers at our June 29 event at the National Press Club in Washington exposed, once again, how the U.S. facilitated the provision of arms to al-Qaeda-linked rebels, and demonstrated that there were many warnings leading up to the attack on the Special Mission Compound, warnings that the administration ignored. In addition, the administration was derelict in its duty to send forces to aid those under attack in Benghazi.

I said that “There’s a media theme, or meme, out there that keeps saying—and you see this [at the] New York Times, CNN, everywhere, saying, ‘No new evidence of any wrongdoing by Hillary Clinton.’ That seems to be the conclusion of most of the media in response to yesterday’s [House Select Committee report]. And we see a field of smoking guns.”

“No matter what comes out…the role of many in the mainstream media is to protect the legacy of President Obama and protect the presidential candidacy and viability of Hillary Clinton,” I argued.

I was joined by a number of other members of the CCB, including former CIA officer Clare Lopez, General Thomas McInerney, Lt. Colonel Denny Haney, Admiral James “Ace” Lyons (all retired), our attorney John Clarke, as well as guests Rear Admiral Chuck Kubic (ret.) and Charles Woods, father of Ty Woods, the former Navy SEAL who was killed in the attack on the CIA Annex.

Here are some of our findings, in the words of each of the CCB members and the guests. In my earlier column on the press conference, we included a video of the entire event, including Q&A and crosstalk among the panelists. Here we present a video of each individual speaker. If you want to see the Q&A as well, please go to the previous column:

Clare Lopez:

“So, when we undertook to begin this second report, we think that we bring to this topic a willingness to name names, a willingness to assign responsibility and to demand accountability that too many of the others, committees and others, have not done—have neglected to do.”

“Now, from Christopher Stevens to the folks at the CIA Annex, they were in fact then relying on exactly the jihadist enemy that was eventually to turn on them and to kill four Americans and injure others so gravely.”

“Absolutely, they [Hillary and Obama] lied. There’s no question. We know, again, from Judicial Watch documents obtained through the FOIA process that the administration, including the President and Secretary of State Clinton, were actively involved that very night while the attack was still going on in concocting a false narrative to deflect the story from the truth and to defend at all costs, even the cost of American lives, the re-election campaign of the President. They were not even decided on which video they were going to blame. They only knew that they were going to blame a video.”

General Thomas McInerney (ret.):

“We should have prepositioned F-16s from Aviano down to Sigonella to be on 15-minute alert.”

“It was 9/11. Isn’t 9/11 a significant date for us? And yet we had none of this preparation. We had all of the Combatant Commanders back in Washington, DC, on a commanders’ conference.”

“So, there was no pre-planning. I call that dereliction of duty.”

Lt. Colonel Dennis Haney (ret.):

“I talked to Sean Smith’s uncle this morning, and he said he’s read our report. He got halfway through [Trey] Gowdy’s report, he got all the way through our report. He says read this [CCB] report if you want to know the truth.”

“Qaddafi was out there killing bad guys. He was killing al Qaeda, and al Qaeda we supported—they went to Syria, they became ISIS. We developed ISIS. That’s a fact.”

Admiral James “Ace” Lyons (ret.):

“And when I watched the [Select Committee on Benghazi’s] press conference yesterday, to say I was disappointed would be an understatement, because Chairman Gowdy is not a stenographer and he’s not a tape recorder. He was there to make findings and conclusions. He had the information; he copped out.”

“There’s no reason why F-16 aircraft weren’t moved from Aviano to Sigonella, or to Souda Bay, Crete—either place. We had a 130-man Marine force recon team at Sigonella. We had the Marine FAST teams at Rota. We had the Commanders’ in Extremis Force in Croatia. We had assets.”

“We know Jeremy Bash, the chief of staff at the Department of Defense, at 1910 that evening sent an email, or called the State Department, and said ‘we’re spinning up as we [speak].’ Where do we get the cross border authority?”

John Clarke:

“Now we just heard, I just found out, because I haven’t read Mr. Gowdy’s report, that the order [to deploy] was given at 7:00 pm. Well, the attack began at 3:42 pm. local time. That’s three hours later.”

Rear Admiral Chuck Kubic (ret.):

“And I found out eventually that it was Secretary Clinton working directly with the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who had shut down not that truce talk [with Qaddafi] but had struck down a parallel one I didn’t even know was happening through a different business channel.”

“So it struck me that the same behavior that shut down the 72-hour truce at the onset of the war, leading to death, destruction a failed state, was the same kind of behavior that existed in that 7:30 [Deputies] meeting.”

Charles Woods:

“Many, many times Ty as a Navy SEAL in his 20 years of service was in worse situations than this. But he always knew that if there was a compromise of the mission, that he was going to be extracted. That did not happen in this case. That’s part of the DNA of being in the military. That’s part of the code of ethics, is you are always rescued.”

“We have a lot of experts in the military that say they could have been rescued. No attempt was made.”

You can read the CCB’s new report here. It is well documented, it puts Benghazi in context, it explains why we were in Libya, what we did and didn’t do, and it names the people most responsible for the failures of Benghazi.


Roger Aronoff is the Editor of Accuracy in Media, and a member of the Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi. He can be contacted at [email protected]. View the complete archives from Roger Aronoff.

07/13/16

Exclusive…The Most Outrageous Clinton Scandal Is About to Hit the Fan

By: S. Noble | Independent Sentinel

Scandal

How Do We Get Our Country Back With This Kind of Unbridled Corruption?

The biggest Clinton scandal has always been The Clinton Foundation.

The following exclusive exposé comes out of an interview Monday evening with financial expert and writer Charles Ortel who has been investigating The Clinton Foundation and what you are about to hear will shock you. It’s outrageous and more evidence of the special rules the Clintons live by.

Mr. Ortel believes a prominent group – politicians out of DC – are about to take it on and it might be bipartisan. They will demand FBI Director Comey look into the Foundation.

Mr. Ortel is the one who made a name for himself when he uncovered the floundering of GE when no one else did. Mr. Ortel started looking into The Clinton Foundation and expected to see a solid charity. He is not political and wasn’t exploring it from a partisan viewpoint.

What he found floored him. The Clintons took a charity approved to build a presidential archival library out of Arkansas where the laws are very different and moved it into New York where the laws are strict. They completely ignored the New York laws and took on projects that had nothing to do with the library.

The charity, Mr. Ortel said, “is a complete fraud.” It has never had a real audit and under New York law, once they take in $500,000 a year, an audit is required.

The Clinton Foundation is nothing but a “slush fund”, he said.

They claim to be fighting HIV/AIDs but have never been approved for that very dangerous operation.

No one knows how much money goes in or out of it.

The Clinton Global Initiative (CGI) teamed up with Laureate and claimed to be a university which is not allowed. Bill has claimed $16 1/2 million for part time work as chancellor and did not report it.

He gave some speeches from what I can determine.

For the most recent year, about $300 million has gone through this foundation without any accounting.

In New York State, every grant is supposed to be filed and they’ve never done that.

As Mr. Ortel said, people have donated their time and money for charity and there is no accounting. He said it’s the reverse of Robin Hood. It’s the rich stealing from the poor.

He gave some examples of the potential corruption. Norway gave $90 million but the Foundation claimed they gave $30 million. Where’s the other $60 million?

No one knows how much goes to charity. We asked Charles about that specifically.

The first question, he said, is how much of the money that goes towards the Clintons actually goes towards charity. The second question is how much goes to the only authorized tax-exempt purpose of the charity which is the Little Rock Clinton library. That isn’t more than 10%.

Consider for a moment how conservatives were treated over their 501(c)s and then compare to what the Clintons get away with.

The balance beyond the library goes to all kinds of operations that aren’t tied to charity, Mr. Ortel contends.

The Clinton Global Initiative which is their showcase is “nothing but a gigantic party”. There are no controls over how much money actually got spent. They have these conferences and brag about what they might do. They dress up and party.

The corruption starts with the Clinton Foundation but there is a lot more. There is something called the American India Foundation and it claims $100 million but the man running it said he raised a billion dollars. The charity for Haiti has supposedly raised $14 billion for Haiti but the people in Haiti are poorer than they were before the money was raised.

There are many other arms of this thing but there’s no accounting. This is “a modern version of Tammany Hall only it’s on a global scale” with tens of billions of dollars floating around, Mr. Ortel concluded.

While Barack Obama can forgive their federal crimes, Mr. Ortel believes they have broken state and international laws over which he has no control.

The entire Broadcast is below and begins with the dangers police will face in Cleveland next week and then ends about 2/3rds of the way through with Charles Ortel. The audio is better. Go to about 59:30:

07/12/16

Comey Indicts Hillary Clinton—But Recommends No Indictment

By: Roger Aronoff | Accuracy in Media

Comey

Back in March, when it appeared that FBI Director James Comey might call for the indictment of Hillary Clinton, I laid out the stark consequences of failing to bring criminal charges against the now presumptive Democratic presidential candidate: “Now the administration faces its biggest challenge, which will determine whether the U.S. has become a banana republic: Will Hillary Clinton be indicted?”

The day when our Republic has succumbed to corruption, politicization and cronyism has arrived. In light of the decision last week by Director Comey and his rationale for it, we may have become that banana republic.

The idea that Hillary Clinton broke no laws while secretary of state is offensive to anyone who believes in equal justice for all. Even Director Comey, during his July 5statement to announce that the FBI will not recommend prosecution, did not argue that Mrs. Clinton and her staff weren’t in the wrong. Rather, he said that “no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case” against Mrs. Clinton. But a number of very reasonable former prosecutors have since said otherwise: Rudy Giuliani, Joe diGenova, former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, and Andy McCarthy, to name a few. Yes, they’re all Republicans, just like Comey. But Comey owes his appointment as FBI director to President Obama, whose knowledge of Hillary’s use of an unsecured server implicates his own office in this ongoing scandal. This may well explain why Obama has had his thumb on the scale, long ago declaring Hillary’s actions as merely “careless” and not jeopardizing national security, while claiming no knowledge of the investigation beyond what was in the media.

Comey said investigators “did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information,” but they did find evidence “that [Clinton and her aides] were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.”

Despite Comey’s assertion that such a prosecution would be unprecedented because Mrs. Clinton didn’t, in his view, intend to break the law, Sarah Westwood of The Washington Examiner has found several examples where negligence, or carelessness, in handling classified materials—far less egregiously than Clinton—resulted in charges.

There was, for example, the case of the Marine Corps officer forced out of the service for mishandling classified materials. His crime: “sending a warning to deployed colleagues about an Afghan police chief whose servant later killed three Marines” and that the police chief “was corrupt and sexually abusing children,” according to The Washington Post.

Two days after Comey’s announcement, he went before a congressional committee to answer questions about his decision. During questioning from Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC), Comey acknowledged that Mrs. Clinton had lied about whether she had sent or received any emails marked classified; whether she had emailed classified material that was classified at the time, whether marked or not; whether she had done this email set up so she could do all of her emailing using just one device (Comey acknowledged that she had used multiple devices); the fact that she had turned all of her work related emails over to the State Department (Comey acknowledged there were “thousands” that had not been turned over); and she lied when she said that no work related emails were deleted or wiped from her server. You can watch that exchange here:

But the events leading up to and throughout the Fourth of July weekend revealed a staged event, or at least one in which the principal players must have known Comey’s bottom line. About the time it was announced that Hillary was finally going to be interviewed by the FBI for three and a half hours, it accidentally came to light that there had been a meeting on a plane between former President Bill Clinton and Attorney General Loretta Lynch. Clinton had appointed Lynch to her position as U.S. Attorney when he was president. In addition, a message came from the Clinton camp via The New York Times that Ms. Lynch would be getting strong consideration to stay on as attorney general in a Hillary Clinton administration. And we heard from CNN and others citing sources “familiar with the investigation” indicating that no indictment was likely. The fix was in; the media should have instead been asking the hard questions about Mrs. Clinton’s reckless disregard of the law.

Then, less than three days after the FBI interview was completed—an interview that Comey later said was not under oath, and apparently not recorded—he announced that he was recommending no indictment, and that no reasonable prosecutor would do otherwise. It would have been impossible to compare her statements in the interview to her public record to determine if she had lied to the FBI. Comey even acknowledged that her testimony was not compared at all to what she told the Select Committee on Benghazi last October.

On the same day as Comey’s announcement, President Obama and Mrs. Clinton traveled together on Air Force One to a campaign stop where she spoke in front of the presidential seal. In other words, the outcome was apparently known before Comey made his announcement, in spite of his declaring that that was not the case.

As former federal prosecutor Andy McCarthy has previously noted, “’malicious intent’ is not required to prove felonious mishandling of classified information.” Rather, McCarthy writes, “gross negligence would do, so if there really is even ‘scant’ evidence of malicious intent, that suggests it would be fairly easy to prove the crime.”

Even Director Comey concurs that Mrs. Clinton and her staff were willfully reckless. Do her actions not qualify at least as “gross negligence?”

“Mrs. Clinton has asserted that she did not send or receive any information marked classified at the time it was sent,” reports The New York Times. “But about two dozen emails were designated ‘top secret,’ the highest level of classification, and Mrs. Clinton’s critics say she jeopardized national security.”

In other words, Mrs. Clinton lied.

“To be clear,” said Comey at his announcement, “this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions, but that’s not what we’re deciding now.”

Yet there will be few consequences for Hillary Clinton for her misconduct outside the political domain. And Comey’s actions constitute little more than a politicized decision.

As secretary of state, Mrs. Clinton repeatedly acted in ways that benefitted her and her family and her family’s foundation, in obvious quid pro quo situations, and most importantly in her handling of classified information on her private unsecured server. When there were problems with the secure fax, Mrs. Clinton indicated that her staff could turn secure information “into nonpaper with w no identifying heading and send nonsecure,” thereby stripping classified markings. Mrs. Clinton also authored 104 classified emails sent through her private email server.

Clinton apologists and the media have claimed that the information Mrs. Clinton sent through her private email server was largely up-classified retrospectively. However, the classified information that Mrs. Clinton jeopardized was far from inconsequential—and some of it was highly classified at the time. One of Mrs. Clinton’s emails regarding the “movement of North Korean nuclear assets” was “initially flagged by the inspector general of the intelligence community in July as potentially containing information derived from highly classified satellite and mapping system of the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency,” according to The Washington Times.

The degree to which Mrs. Clinton broke classification laws shows arrogance and contempt for the American people. It was not merely carelessness: it was willful. And, as Comey said, Mrs. Clinton’s use of a private email server was widely known by those in government.

This is a dark day in American history, although the media certainly won’t report it that way. We must wait to see if Joe diGenova was right when he said in January that there would be a revolt inside the Bureau if there is no indictment, because failing to prosecute Mrs. Clinton means that the government can never again credibly indict someone for mishandling of classified material.

As far as the other investigation regarding public corruption, in regard to the intersection of Mrs. Clinton’s work as secretary of state with matters related to the Clinton Foundation, it came up at the House Oversight Committee hearing on Thursday, but Comey refused to comment. Asked by Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), chair of the House Committee on Government Oversight and Reform, “Did you look at the Clinton Foundation?” Comey replied, “I’m not going to comment on the existence or non-existence of any other investigations.”

Some see this as an unintentional favor to the GOP and those who believe that electing Mrs. Clinton president would be a disaster in terms of rewarding someone who was so deceitful and reckless with America’s national security secrets. She may also be vulnerable to blackmail from countries and individuals who may have successfully hacked her server. Mrs. Clinton is a badly weakened candidate, the theory goes, and was clearly treated as someone above the law. Comey, whether wittingly or unwittingly, made the case for how corrupt and deceitful Mrs. Clinton had acted, but left her to twist slowly in the wind.


Roger Aronoff is the Editor of Accuracy in Media, and a member of the Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi. He can be contacted at [email protected]. View the complete archives from Roger Aronoff.

07/7/16

James Comey makes the government safe for corruption

By: LAWRENCE SELLIN, PHD | Family Security Matters

It is times like this that words almost fail me, but, thinking about FBI Director James Comey, “coward,” “disgrace” and “cheap political hack” come to mind.

Other words like “hypocrite” and “double standard” are, in this case, equally appropriate.

The FBI investigated Hillary Clinton for alleged violations of U.S. Code Title 18 § 793 – Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information, subsection (f):

“Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer- Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.”

On national television, Comey, describing his reasons for not charging Hillary Clinton with a crime, said:

“Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. ”

First and foremost, U.S. Code Title 18 § 793 subsection (f) says nothing about “intent” as a requirement for indictment.

Secondly, recalling my days in the US Army Reserve for which I had a security clearance, the classified computer system (SIPRNet) was neither connected to nor interactive with non-classified systems. Moving information from SIPRNet to a non-classified computer system was both a violation of U.S. Code Title 18 § 793 and could only be done physically and intentionally using a portable storage device like a thumb drive.

Somebody had to move that classified information, physically and intentionally, from the State Department’s classified system for delivery to Hillary Clinton’s non-classified account.

Will anyone be prosecuted or does everything surrounding this case get swept under the rug?

And what is the difference between the “extreme carelessness” that Comey claims Hillary Clinton demonstrated and the “gross negligence” described in U.S. Code Title 18 § 793 subsection (f)?

And why didn’t Comey let the “prosecutors” in the Department of Justice decide not to indict rather than FBI, which really isn’t its role in the legal system?

Comey followed his appalling excuse for inaction with what one could consider an outright lie, stating:

“In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts.”

There was just such a similar case less than a year ago.

On its own website, dated July 29, 2015, the FBI boasts about the conviction of a Folsom California Naval Reservist, who was convicted and sentenced after pleading guilty to unauthorized removal and retention of classified materials:

“According to court documents, Nishimura was a Naval reservist deployed in Afghanistan in 2007 and 2008. In his role as a Regional Engineer for the U.S. military in Afghanistan, Nishimura had access to classified briefings and digital records that could only be retained and viewed on authorized government computers. Nishimura, however, caused the materials to be downloaded and stored on his personal, unclassified electronic devices and storage media. He carried such classified materials on his unauthorized media when he traveled off-base in Afghanistan and, ultimately, carried those materials back to the United States at the end of his deployment. In the United States, Nishimura continued to maintain the information on unclassified systems in unauthorized locations, and copied the materials onto at least one additional unauthorized and unclassified system.”

Does that not sound like, in substance, what Hillary Clinton and her subordinates did?

Comey’s decision was nothing less than politically-motivated malfeasance, that is, the performance by a public official of an act that is legally unjustified, harmful, or contrary to law.

Thanks to Comey, it should now be clear to all thoughtful Americans that the US Government, as an institution, is hopelessly corrupt, unaccountable to the people and unconstrained by the rule of law.

Comey obviously concurs with and has aptly demonstrated that the political elite are immune from prosecution regardless of the damage done to our national security and the Constitution, specifically the concept of equal justice under the law.

James Comey has secured his place in US History.

America has a new Benedict Arnold.

Lawrence Sellin, Ph.D. is a retired colonel with 29 years of service in the US Army Reserve and a veteran of Afghanistan and Iraq. Colonel Sellin is the author of “Restoring the Republic: Arguments for a Second American Revolution “. He receives email at [email protected].