===
If you want to know how low America has sunk and how disaffected supposed voters are with government you have only to note that Bernie Sanders, an outspoken Socialist, and Donald Trump, an outspoken selfie, are drawing large crowds and capturing the spotlight of their respective parties.
The Demwits have lost their moorings and are now the party of redistribution and entitlements because winning is more important than the nation's best interests. Obama set their course and will take them into oblivion as his failures come back to haunt over time with the Iran Deal only the last but most dangerous of potential disasters. (See 1 and 1a below.)
Republicans , on the other hand, are so disorganized, they lose every opportunity by shooting themselves in their feet. By now they should have no toes left. Winning is not everything to Republicans. Being unable to match the Demwits in delivering a cohesive message that is both understood and resonates seems to be their basic problem.
So what is the future of our nation as it faces displacement in The Middle East by a rogue power which Obama is feeding, the challenge of China in the Pacific Ocean, as it builds a world class fleet and ours shrinks and the total decline of Europe, a Continent that has lost all connection with its past , in part, because of its dependence on Russian sourced energy?
Trends have a way of reversing course once they have reached extremes but I doubt we have reached that "Tipping Point." I suspect we have another war ahead of us as The Iran Deal is allowed to reach a veto proof pass.
Obama's comment that the option of war is the only one left if The Iran Deal is not passed may have currency because his fecklessness allowed the situation to reach this point. It is as if a person ignored a foot infection and then was left with the sole alternative of amputating the entire foot. Everything Obama did prior to negotiation played into and strengthened Iran's hand. As Professor Friedmann pointed out, in his excellent presentation, Iran is better at negotiating than we are and the Ayatollah knows how to get what he wants and was able to take advantage of Obama and Kerry's broadcast of our desire to do at deal at any cost.
Add to this, the predilection to vote party loyalty over protecting America's interests and you have the making of a disastrous porridge.
I am no seer and cannot predict the future but I do know a little history, having lived a good bit of it, and the war clouds will gather because a nuclear Iran will become an intolerable challenge to world order. As Obama leaves the stage he will be in a position to blame any future president for what happens. That is the game he knows best and has played continuously. The hand Obama deals to any predecessor, whether it be a deficit that tears at the flesh worse than barbed wire, or a wrecked diplomacy that leaves no viable options, will be his legacy. Over time it will become clearer this was his intent. Yes, he wanted to change America and redirect its course because he viewed our history through the eyes of a radical influenced by those with an even greater myopic vision. (See 1b below.)
Obama craftily rearranged the chairs on the deck, opened the flood gates and will blame all who follow for allowing the ship to flounder. Meanwhile, narcissism remains Obama's life jacket. (See 1c below.)
===
Hillary, apparently, has agreed to give her server to the FBI. If Obama wants to boost her campaign this agency, which is overseen and directed by a Justice Department, totally incapable of investigating Obama wrong doing(s), will be forced to white wash any findings.
On the other hand, if Obama wants to crush her prospects and the FBI is allowed to do a legitimate job and finds evidence that contradicts her self serving words and actions, and this occurs before the nominating process is completed, her ability to reign will be dashed.
One thing that should be evident, Obama has no particular friendly feelings for the Clinton's. He appointed her Sec. of State because it is an axiom you keep your enemies close to you. It is all up to what Valerie decides is best for her little boy's legacy.
Is Hilarious' campaign about to implode?
Stay tuned! (See 2 and 2a below.)
===
In typical wormy fashion Sen. Schumer has stated he will not whip up opposition to the Iran Deal.
This way Chuck hopes he can register his no vote for the benefit of his Jewish constituents while keeping peace with Obama. A win win.
I submit Schumer will not accomplish his desired goal because what he is doing, as he has all his political life, is so patently two faced most voters will see through his effort .
If this is not disingenuous enough Schumer lusts to become his party's head in the Senate, a position calling upon the occupant to lead. If this is how Schumer leads I daresay he looks wormier and more unprincipled than ever.
===
Bill Whittle is my hero and he expresses why I believe being a Conservative is who I am and Conservatism is what I believe and why it is good for America. He knows, as I do, not to allow the other side, the collectivists, determine the ground on which the debate takes place because if you do you lose.
I challenge anyone to listen to Whittle's presentation and disagree with it.
This is what Mdison envisioned our country was based upon and what John Agresto's book is all about.
---
For those who believe these Senators should vote against the Iran Deal here is the number you can call and leave a message after 6PM. (See 3 below.)
-===
DickFor those who believe these Senators should vote against the Iran Deal here is the number you can call and leave a message after 6PM. (See 3 below.)
-===
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)
The Democrats’ Socialist Surge
Bernie Sanders drew a crowd of 27,500 in Los Angeles on Monday. In the age of Obama, a liberal with a statist agenda fits right in.
People who follow politics probably know that Bernie Sanders, the U.S. senator from Vermont who is challenging Hillary Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination, is a socialist. Whether they give a fig is a separate matter, which may tell you something about today’s Democrats.
Mr. Sanders is currently drawing the largest crowds of any candidate in either party. On Monday, he drew a crowd his campaign estimated at 27,500 to the Los Angeles Memorial Sports Arena, including those in an overflow area outside, watching on giant video screens. Over the weekend, 28,000 people turned out to see him in Portland, Ore., and a campaign stop in Seattle pulled 15,000. The conventional wisdom is that Mr. Sanders’s bid is destined to fail. His progressive base is too white and too small for a party that places a premium on “diversity,” and the Democratic establishment has already settled on Mrs. Clinton.
All true, perhaps. The disruption of his Seattle appearance by “Black Lives Matter” protesters suggests that challenges lie ahead for him. But it is also true that no one is saying Bernie Sanders can’t win because America isn’t ready to elect an avowed socialist as president, which might have been the case not too long ago.
Mr. Sanders, a New York City native, moved to Vermont in 1968 after becoming involved with the radical left while attending the University of Chicago. He first ran for Senate in 1972 as the candidate of the socialist Liberty Union Party and garnered just 2% of the vote. He lost a few more statewide races, and then eked out a 10-vote victory in 1981 to become mayor of Burlington. In 1990, running as an independent, he became only the third socialist ever elected to the U.S. House of Representatives. The one preceding him—Victor Berger of Wisconsin—left office in 1929.
Berger was a founding member of the Socialist Party of America, which nominated labor leader Eugene Debs for president five times between 1900 and 1920. The first part of the 20th century was socialism’s heyday. Debs never won a state but he did win almost 6% of the popular vote in 1912, and the party elected about 1,200 candidates to local offices during that period. The socialists, however, with their calls for income redistribution and the nationalization of resources, were never able to compete with Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s coalition of Big Labor, blacks and rural whites in the South.
In 1932, the Socialist Party won just 2% of the vote, and in 1936 it managed less than half of 1%. Depression-era Democrats wanted economic growth, not a cradle-to-grave welfare state. When a 1935 Gallup poll asked voters to assess the amount of government spending on relief and recovery, only one in 10 said spending was too low, and the respondents who said spending was too high outnumbered those who said it was adequate by 2 to 1.
“Socialist parties blossomed in every important country in Europe in the second half of the nineteenth century, mobilizing mass support for expanding the power of the state, both to provide welfare services (such as pensions) and to restrain the power of the market,” write John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge in their 2004 history of U.S. politics, “The Right Nation.” “But in America socialists cast their seed on barren ground.”
Notwithstanding FDR’s New Deal and Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society programs, the authors note, when Ronald Reagan won the presidency in 1980 “on a wave of resentment against ‘big government,’ the United States had a lower tax rate, a smaller deficit as a proportion of GNP, a less developed welfare state and fewer government-owned industries than any other western industrialized nation.”
If the Democratic Party once felt the need to distinguish itself from socialism, that no longer seems to be the case. When Mr. Sanders entered Congress in 1991, “Democrats initially balked at accepting a Socialist in their caucus,” according to the “Almanac of American Politics.” Eventually, however, he was granted seniority status as a Democrat, and he used it to push a progressive agenda that included tax increases, single-payer health care, a 50% reduction in military spending and a national energy policy.
It was working-class voters who backed Debs a century ago, but Mr. Sanders’s socialism appeals mainly to upper-middle-class professionals and fits neatly within the parameters of mainstream, income-inequality-obsessed Democratic politics in the 21st century. He may have an affinity for a political ideology that has given the world everything from the Soviet Gulag to modern-day Greece, but in this age of Obama, the senator is just another liberal with a statist agenda.
Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the head of the Democratic National Committee, was visibly rattled when MSNBC host Chris Matthews asked her recently to explain “the difference between a Democrat and a Socialist.”
Her non-response: “The more important question is, ‘What is the difference between being a Democrat and being a Republican?’ ”
Mr. Matthews pressed her: “I used to think there was a big difference. What do you think it is? A Democrat like Hillary and a Socialist like Bernie Sanders.” Ms. Wasserman Schultz refused to answer. And why should she? These days, it’s largely a distinction without a difference.
1a) Why Liberals are Dangerous
The Left (liberal mainstream media) practically had a ticker tape parade for Ohio Gov. John Kasich for answers he gave on two issues during the GOP debate. Liberals' praise of Kasich shows they have chosen emotion over logical, reasoned thinking. This makes liberals irresponsible and dangerous. These people must never be in charge.
The Left praised Kasich for his entitlement program that is $1.4 billion in the red, thus far -- in only 18 months. Kasich defended his program saying it was the Christian thing to do.
First of all, the Bible does not support stupid business practices and irresponsible spending of other people's money. Proverbs 22:29 “Have you seen a man who is expert in his business? He will take his place before kings; his place will not be among low persons.”
In 1972, Hurricane Agnes flooded our small black Baltimore suburban community. Dad and my brother rescued residents from the roofs of their homes in a rowboat. As a community leader, my dad, Rev. Marcus, assisted residents in acquiring relief checks from the Red Cross. My parents were among those who lost everything in the flood. What if Dad took his family's relief check and distributed it among needy neighbors? Liberals would praise Dad for his compassion for the poor. The reality is Dad's behavior, though well-intended, would be irresponsible to my mom and younger siblings living at home. Such common-sense adult thinking seems to escape liberals.
Gov. Kasich is furthering an entitlement program that is void of economic sense is irresponsible to taxpayers, no matter how well-intended. Feelings trump common sense these days in America. Liberals will call me a mean Republican who does not care about people for suggesting that politicians spend responsibly. Most liberals are brain-dead emotion-driven fools.
Kasich's answer regarding gay marriage was the second issue that won him great praise from liberals. Kasich said while he is a traditional guy, the courts made gay marriage law and he will comply. Kasich added that he attended a friend's gay wedding because we must love people. I am sorry, Gov. Kasich and Leftists, but it is absurd to suggest that loving someone means embracing everything they do. Once again, more brain-dead emotion-driven liberal reasoning. Sometimes, love means rejecting a friend or family member's behavior.
My daughter married a woman. I explained to my daughter why as a Christian, I could not support their union. She understood. We still have a great loving relationship, though we differ when the Patriots play the Broncos. Go Manning!
Here is an interesting observation. Like many youths, a handful of Dad's adult grand kids have gone through a rebellious stage; straying from their Christian upbringing like the prodigal son. Each of them hid their sinful behaviors from my dad. They hold Dad's opinion in high regard with a desire to make him proud. Even my daughter seems to care more about my dad's opinion of her than mine.
I asked myself, why? Dad is not a tyrant in any way. He is loving and easygoing. So why do the millennials in our family care so much about their granddad's opinion of them?
The answer is all of their lives, they have witnessed the consistency in Dad's Christian walk and his commitment to biblical standards. The grand kids know Dad loves each of them dearly, but is faithful to his commitment to Christ. My daughter and the other grand kids love Dad greatly and give him their utmost respect.
Perhaps, millennials are looking for trustworthy leaders/politicians who stand for something. GOP presidential contender Sen. Ted Cruz comes to mind. Too many wimpy baby-boomers embrace every Leftist anti-Christian and anti-American socialist/progressive agenda item; desiring to be thought of as modern and enlightened.
People in positions of power who place feelings above common sense, responsibility and reasoned thinking are dangerous. They (liberals) must never be in charge.
Take sanctuary cities. These are liberal-governed U.S. cities that have officially decided to disobey federal law by sheltering illegal aliens.
Liberalism has been described as a “mental disease.” For whatever reasons, liberals who run sanctuary cities feel it is unfair that we in America have so much. Consequently, they roll out the red carpet to illegals; gifting them welfare, college tuition, and benefits unavailable to legal American citizens.
Years ago, a businessman friend moved to California. He made more money than ever. And yet, he had to move back to the east coast because the cost of living was too high. Amazingly, my friend said if he had been an illegal alien, he and his family could have survived just fine in California. Does that make sense? Of course not. I wrote a satirical song about his experience titled, “Can't Afford the Sunshine.”
Talk about crazy brain-dead thinking – even with epidemic high numbers of murders, rapes, and assaults on Americans by repeat criminal illegals, nothing seems to soften sanctuary cities' commitment to welcome and protect illegals. Wacko liberals in charge are dangerous, folks.
Liberals wrongfully get high marks for compassion. The truth is real compassionate leadership makes wise responsible decisions. Liberals define a compassionate nation as how long that line is of people showing up for their daily allotment of free fish. In America today, 94 million Americans are unemployed. And yet, they have all the necessities and many of the luxuries of working Americans. Forty-seven million Americans are on food stamps. Millions of capable Americans are receiving disability.
Conservatives define compassion as liberating citizens from government. Government handouts are always accompanied with government dictates and controls. There ain't no free lunch.Conservative government says, we will gladly give you fish for the short term. However, our greater goal is to help you experience the dignity, pride, and independence of catching your own fish. We will get rid of the overreaching government controls on catching fish and help you acquire a fishing rod.
Who do you want running the show (your county) folks -- brain-dead emotion-driven liberals or adult conservatives?
1b)
Why Does U.S. Economic Performance Continue To Decline?
The government's latest GDP numbers, through Q2 2015, are now out, and they include some revisions to Q1, as well as other revisions for the period 2012 - 2014. Lenore Hawkins analyzes the numbers at Elle's Economy, in an article titled "GDP Numbers Keep Getting Worse." One consequence of the revisions is that Q1 2015 went from a slight decline to a slight increase. But the other revisions to earlier years, particularly 2012 - 2014, had the effect of lowering previously-reported GDP substantially:
In the 138 years from 1870 to 2008, the US economy expanded by about an average of 3% a year. After the revisions to GDP data from 2012-2014, we see that the U.S. economy since the financial crisis has been growing an average of 2.0% a year versus the earlier 2.3%. . . . Most importantly, 2010-2014 was weaker in every quarter except the second and 2015 so far has been the worst yet!
So why doesn't the U.S. economy just get going like it always did in the past -- even as recently as the decade of the 1990s and from 2001 - 2008? Could there be something different about the Obama regime?
Well, there is the fact that the Obama administration continues to conduct what I have called its War Against the Economy. As described in that article and elsewhere on this blog, that war has many fronts, including: massive wasteful spending and debt accumulation; artificially suppressing cheap and reliable energy in favor of subsidizing expensive and unreliable energy; overregulation and endless phony prosecutions directed against anyone who dares to make too much money in a financial business; forcing people to overpay for wasteful health insurance (Obamacare); big tax increases; and more. You would think they might let up on the war as the economy continues to languish, but in fact they just keep doubling down. I truly believe that Obama and his minions have no idea that there is any relationship between intentional suppression of economic activity by the government on the one hand and sluggish economic performance by the economy on the other.
So there was Obama yesterday announcing the final version of EPA's so-called Clean Power Plan. This version has several changes from the prior proposal, including a goal to get rid of even more coal-based electricity generation, and new restrictions on shale gas. Since it takes years to change over electricity generation from one source to another, the coal industry has already been gradually going out of business for the past several years. So far it's a hundred or so power plants closed, and tens of thousands of miners out of work. And now they're going to force this to happen even faster! In his speech yesterday, Obama tried to claim the moral high ground by making the case for closing power plants on the basis of asthma. From Breitbart News:
President Obama defended his new draconian rules on coal fired power plants today, using a moral argument for battling back the dangers of climate change. As part of his argument for his new policies, President Obama insisted that more minorities were being hurt by air pollution. He argued that African-American children was more than twice as likely to be hospitalized from asthma and a Latino child was 40 percent more likely to die from asthma. “If you care about low income minority Americans, start protecting the air they breath. . . ."
So our President is so "smart" that he believes that CO2 in the air is a cause of asthma? Yikes! But then we also know that he believes that it's a good idea for a government to borrow as much money as it can and waste it as fast as possible. Hey, Paul Krugman told him that. All the "smart" people know it! Anyway, in order to prevent young minority children from getting asthma from all that extra CO2 in the air, we are now going to intentionally jack up the price of electricity so that the underprivileged families can't afford lighting and air conditioning any more. Because it's the moral thing to do!
Richard Wellings of the Institute of Economic Affairs comments on Obama's energy plans yesterday in The Telegraph, in an article aptly titled "Barack Obama's green plans could cripple America's economy."
In much of the US, the power industry continues to rely on coal. Consumers in Kentucky, where over 90% of electricity is generated from coal, enjoy electricity prices roughly 50% lower than in the UK, an indication of the huge potential cost of Obama's plans. Indeed much higher bills are almost inevitable now that the US is adopting EU-style policies. Carbon emissions from the power sector will be cut by an ambitious 32% by 2030 (compared to 2005 levels). Worse still, the Clean Power Plan will favour expensive renewable energy over the relatively low-cost option of cutting emissions by switching from coal to natural gas.
Actually Richard, the crippling of the American economy by the Clean Power Plan has been going on for quite a while already, because of the time it takes to change over power production, and because the utilities can't take the chance of being caught out on the day the new regulations take effect. But then, that's only a fraction of the intentional crippling that these people are inflicting. It's what we call Obama's "legacy."
1c) Ramifications of the Iran Deal
Regarding the Iranian nuclear deal, some Democrats are singing “Kumbaya”. Even when Iran at the last minute added more stipulations, the U.S. delegation and President Obama never walked away. American Thinker asked national security experts to weigh in on the other consequences of the deal.
Those opposing the deal are accused of being “warmongers” by the Obama Administration. If anything the president could be called a “warmonger” for agreeing to such an atrocious deal. Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on a conference call that President Obama’s argument is outrageous and false, and in actuality “The deal will bring war by sparking a nuclear arms race in the region and will allow Iran to continue its terror and aggression. That will make war, perhaps the most horrific war of all.”
President Obama has argued that the deal should be judged solely on whether it stops Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Yet, critics suggest otherwise pointing to the last-minute additions of an end to the arms embargo in five years, and an end to the missile restrictions in eight years. Former CIA Director Michael Hayden emphasized that the U.S. should have held the line on the provisions of ballistic missiles and conventional arms. Lt. General Michael T. Flynn summarized the feelings of those interviewed, “We were told that they did not talk about terrorism, missiles, or hostages because it is only a nuclear deal. I say to that, baloney.”
Because the sanctions will be lifted and Iran will receive billions of dollars, Hayden is very concerned, “This legitimizes Iran and makes them more empowered with all that money. It gives the Iranians the ability to continue all the other bad things they are doing. Not only will the Iranians have money to spread terrorism against the U.S. and Israel, but it will also embolden them to suppress any resistance to the government from within.”
Even Ben Rhodes, a national security advisor, as well as the president himself, have said that they do not expect the Iranians to give up their sponsorship of terrorism. Flynn pointed out, “Iranians have yet to apologize for blowing up 283 Marines in Beirut, killing and wounding American soldiers in Iraq, and taking hostages, four who still remain. This administration tells us they were not worrying about these other acts, yet are willing to give them nuclear capability. Are we out of our minds? Just the other day the entire Iranian Parliament was chanting death to Israel and America.”
In a recent speech the president compared those opposed to the deal to the hard-line Iranian mullahs. It is interesting that some influential Democrats, Congressmen Eliot Engel (D-NY) and Brad Sherman (D-CA), came out against the deal after this horrific statement. In finding their moral compass, they all uttered the sentiment of Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) “But if one feels that Iranian leaders will not moderate and their unstated but very real goal is to get relief from the onerous sanctions, while still retaining their nuclear ambitions and their ability to increase belligerent activities in the Middle East and elsewhere, then one should conclude that it would be better not to approve this agreement… The Iranian leaders have held a tight and undiminished grip on Iran, successfully maintaining their brutal, theocratic dictatorship with little threat… Therefore, I will vote to disapprove the agreement, not because I believe war is a viable or desirable option, nor to challenge the path of diplomacy. It is because I believe Iran will not change, and under this agreement it will be able to achieve its dual goals of eliminating sanctions while ultimately retaining its nuclear and non-nuclear power.”
Senator Lindsey Graham told American Thinker that people should understand when the Iranians say they are going to kill Israelis and Americans they should be believed. “Iranians use the opening up of the restrictions on money and weapons to hand-off to the terrorists so they can hit us here at home. This administration should have tied the lifting of the arms embargo and the money to behavior change, not sponsoring terrorism. Even after the deal the Iranian rhetoric is offensive and they get away with it because of this administration’s weakness and incompetency.”
Senator Graham goes on to point out that President Obama’s track record for the Middle East is dismal: withdrawing the troops from Iraq too soon, not helping the free Syrian army against Assad, not enforcing the red line he drew, saying ISIL was part of a JV team, and claiming that Al Qaeda is decimated. He asks, “At what point do we realize that when it comes to the Middle East President Obama does not know what he is talking about? He has literally been wrong on everything, including this Iranian deal. This is a complete under estimation and misunderstanding of the threats. Everything this President has done regarding the Middle East policy has
blown up in his face.”
There is also the argument by the Democrats that the deal will help to open up Iranian society. Elliott Abrams, an advisor to President George W. Bush, says history has shown no evidence that prosperity opens up countries, citing as examples China and Russia, which have become more autocratic since they have allowed American business into the country. He strongly believes the immense transfer of wealth the Iranians will receive from sanction relief will only go to the regime, not the people. “Just as with the 2009 uprising, the Iranian Green Revolution, their people will be forgotten. It gives the regime more money, weapons, and power to not only export terrorism, but to control its own people. They use brutal tactics to maintain control over the country.”
Former Governor Jeb Bush takes seriously the rhetoric of death to America and Israel, and feels that this agreement should not be based “on the hope that the Iranians behavior will moderate over time. The people of Iran, the region, Israel, America, and the world deserve better than a deal that consolidates the grip on power of the violent revolutionary clerics who rule Tehran with an iron fist. This isn’t diplomacy; it is appeasement.”
It is mind-boggling that those same people who cheered the 2009 nuclear deal President Obama made with Russia are also cheering this deal. Congressman Devin Nunes (R-CA) pointed out to American Thinker that the Sunni nations have already said publicly they will get a nuclear weapon given Iran’s capability, and believes this nuclear deal has set up an arms race in the Middle East.
All interviewed are hoping for a new deal, a better deal, but are not optimistic because the Obama administration has not exhibited strong American leadership. They would like to see a restructure that includes not giving any money and weapon relief until Iran has a change of behavior and renounces its terrorist ways, not to mention preventing Iran from achieving nuclear capability. As Michael Hayden noted, “The Iranians remain an apocalyptic messianic regime and at the same time are coldly calculating
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2) ‘Top Secret’ emails found as Clinton probe expands to key aides
BY ANITA KUMAR, MARISA TAYLOR AND GREG GORDON
WASHINGTON
"It's about time," Boehner said in a statement Tuesday night.
Since news broke in March of her use of a personal email address on a server kept in her Chappaqua, New York, home, Clinton has insisted that she's turned over all of her work-related emails to the State Department and deleted all others -- but wouldn't turn over her server to the government.
"The revelation that Secretary Clinton exclusively used private email for official public business, and the multitude of issues that emanated from her decision, including this most recent one, demonstrates what can happen when Congress and those equally committed to exposing the truth, doggedly pursue facts and follow them," he said in a statement.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, said Clinton waited "a long time" before turning the server over.
"That's a long time for top secret classified information to be held by an unauthorized person outside of an approved, secure government facility," he said in a statement. "I look forward to the FBI answering my questions so the American people can be assured that everything has been done to protect our national security interests and hold accountable anyone who broke the rules."
"If Hillary Clinton believed in honesty and transparency, she would have turned over her secret server months ago to an independent arbiter, not as a last resort and to the Obama Justice Department," he said. "Of course, if she really cares about transparency, she would never have had a secret server in the first place."
On Tuesday, McCullough sent four of the emails to chairs of several congressional committees. In a cover letter, he said two of the four emails included information that has now been classified up to top secret.
One of the five emails has since been declassified because it was no longer time-sensitive. The intelligence community maintains the remaining two contained classified material, but is deferring to the State Department on whether they should be identified as such.
McCullough said in the past that "none of the emails we reviewed had classification or dissemination markings," but that some "should have been handled as classified, appropriately marked, and transmitted via a secure network." The State Department has told McCullough that "there are potentially hundreds of classified emails within the approximately 30,000 provided by former Secretary Clinton."
Republicans shared exclusively with CNN a review of those emails sent to Congress on Tuesday, which they said showed Clinton and her aides sent information that would later be classified to six people's private email addresses. They include former Deputy Secretary of State Bill Burns; Cheryl Mills, who was Clinton's chief of staff at the State Department; and Jake Sullivan, who served as Clinton's top foreign policy adviser. Clinton also emailed information that would later be classified to close confidant Sidney Blumenthal, whose communications with Clinton about Libya have become a focus of the House committee investigating the 2012 Benghazi attacks.
"The fact that classified information was sent to and from Hillary Clinton to at least six separate individuals and potentially many more demonstrates just how big of a risk her decision to use a secret server poses to our national security," Republican National Committee research director Raj Shah told CNN.
"We will follow the facts wherever they lead, to include former aides and associates, as appropriate," said Douglas Welty, a spokesman for the State Department's inspector general.
One of the emails containing since-classified information was released to the public, prompting the intelligence community to ask the FBI to investigate the possible compromise of classified material. The State Department now has a team of analysts from the intelligence community to review Clinton's emails before any more are released to the public.
Of the two top-secret emails sent to Congress on Tuesday, State Department spokesman John Kirby said they have not been released to the public and the department is "taking steps to ensure the information is protected and stored appropriately" while the determination was made.
"Department employees circulated these emails on unclassified systems in 2009 and 2011, and ultimately some were forwarded to Secretary Clinton," Kirby said. "They were not marked as classified."
As pressure builds on Hillary Clinton to explain her official use of personal email while serving as secretary of state, she faced new complications Tuesday. It was disclosed her top aides are being drawn into a burgeoning federal inquiry and that two emails on her private account have been classified as “Top Secret.”
The inspector general for the Intelligence Community notified senior members of Congress that two of four classified emails discovered on the server Clinton maintained at her New York home contained material deemed to be in one of the highest security classifications - more sensitive than previously known.
The notice came as the State Department inspector general’s office acknowledged that it is reviewing the use of “personal communications hardware and software” by Clinton’s former top aides after requests from Congress.
“We will follow the facts wherever they lead, to include former aides and associates, as appropriate,” said Douglas Welty, a spokesman for the State Department’s inspector general.
Despite the acknowledgment, the State Department inspector general’s office has left numerous unanswered questions, including exactly who and what is being investigated. The office initially declined to comment and referred questions to the Intelligence Community inspector general’s office, which said it is not currently involved in any inquiry into aides and is being denied full access to aides’ emails by the State Department. Clinton, herself, is not a target.
The expanding inquiry threatens to further erode Clinton’s standing as the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination. Since her reliance on private email was revealed in March, polls in crucial swing states show that increasing numbers of voters say Clinton is not honest and trustworthy, in part, because of her use of private emails.
Sen. Chuck Grassley, the Republican chairman of the Judiciary Committee, wants Clinton and her aides to “come clean and cough up” information about their personal email use.
“Both the State Department and Intelligence Community inspectors general should be looking into the staff use of the Clinton private server for official State Department business. This means giving both inspectors general access and custody of all emails that haven’t already been deleted,” said Grassley of Iowa. “From what is publicly known, it appears that the investigation thus far has focused so much on the former secretary of state, that it’s gotten lost that high-level staff apparently also used this server too.”
State Department spokesman John Kirby referred to the Intelligence Community’s disclosure as a recommendation to “upgrade” the two emails’ classification to “Top Secret.” In a statement, he said that “while we work with the Director of National Intelligence to resolve whether, in fact, this material is actually classified, we are taking steps to ensure the information is protected and stored appropriately.”
At least four top aides have turned over records, including copies of work emails on personal accounts, to the State Department, which is collecting them in response to a subpoena from Capitol Hill, according to the department. Lawmakers have demanded records, including personal emails, from six other aides, but it’s unknown whether they used personal email for work.
Three Republican Senate committee chairmen _ Richard Burr of North Carolina, Bob Corker of Tennessee and Ron Johnson of Wisconsin _ requested in March that both inspector generals conduct an audit of aides’ personal emails.
“As outlined in the joint letter with his colleagues, Chairman Burr has expressed concern that State Department aides may have transmitted sensitive or classified information in an insecure manner,” Burr spokesman Becca Glover Watkins said. “Chairman Burr expects that the IGs will conduct their investigations as requested.”
But it’s not clear that’s being done.
Welty initially said the Intelligence Community inspector general, which had already been looking into the issue of whether classified information has been improperly shared with or by Clinton, has taken responsibility for deciding which emails to review, from whom and determining their classification.
However, Andrea Williams, a spokeswoman for the Intelligence Community Inspector General, said that office “never had access to any emails other than those provided to the State Department by former Secretary Clinton.”
But she said her office could get involved. “The intent is not to just focus on Clinton,” Williams said.
THE OFFICE OF EVALUATIONS AND SPECIAL PROJECTS WITHIN THE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL (OIG) IS REVIEWING THE USE OF COMMUNICATIONS HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE BY FIVE SECRETARIES OF STATE AND THEIR IMMEDIATE STAFFS.
Steve A Linick, Inspector General, Department of State and I. Charles McCullough, III, Inspector General, Intelligence Community to Patrick F. Kennedy, Under Secretary for Management, Department of State
An impasse remains between the State Department and the Intelligence Community’s inspector general over whether the intelligence watchdog should be provided copies of emails due to jurisdictional issues. The State Department has provided records to its Inspector General. A State Department spokesman declined to comment on the issue.
Revelations that dozens of Clinton’s emails now include classified information has prompted an FBI inquiry into whether classified information was improperly stored on her private server and a thumb drive held by her attorney. The news has sparked fear among national security experts that the federal government’s secrets may have been exposed or even hacked. However, the two inspectors general said the material in Clinton’s email was not marked as classified at the time. The FBI declined to comment.
Clinton, which has repeatedly denied she ever sent or received classified information, has attempted to downplay the scrutiny as mere partisan attacks, but questions about her judgment and motive for setting up a private server in her Chappaqua house in 2009 continue to dog her. Her campaign declined to comment.
The case is more complicated because of Clinton’s prominence. A former secretary of state, senator and first lady, Clinton has friends and connections throughout the administration and on Capitol Hill.
“I think the headline is that there’s nothing but murkiness and non-answers from the State Department,” said Bradley Moss, a lawyer who is representing Gawker, a media organization suing for access to one aide’s emails. “I think the State Department is figuring this out as it goes along, which is exactly why no one should be using personal email to conduct government business.”
In March, the House committee investigating the fatal attacks in Benghazi, Libya, in 2012 subpoenaed records, including personal emails relating to official business, from 10 Clinton aides at the State Department about Libya for a two-year period. In turn, the department asked them for records.
Administration officials and Clinton aides have declined to provide a full list of which aides used personal email for government business or who might have had an email account on Clinton’s personal server.
Clinton acknowledged that Huma Abedin, her deputy chief of staff and one of Clinton’s closest confidants, had an account on her personal server in a sworn affidavit filed Monday in a Freedom of Information lawsuit seeking State Department records.
Clinton’s affidavit was her first disclosure that any of her former aides used personal accounts or accounts on her personal server to conduct business. Clinton said that her chief of staff, Cheryl Mills, did not have an account on the server.
Mills, Jake Sullivan, also a deputy chief of staff, and Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Philippe Reines have turned over records to the State Department, including personal emails, in response to a subpoena by the House committee investigating the fatal attacks in Benghazi, Libya in 2012, according to the State Department.
Mills had planned to delete her emails after submitting them to the State Department, according to an Aug. 6 letter from her attorney to the State Department submitted as evidence in the Freedom of Information suit by Judicial Watch, a conservative public interest group that also has sued the State Department seeking Clinton aides’ emails. Her attorneys planned to keep a copy.
But U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan, who is presiding over the suit, issued an order Friday instructing the State Department to direct Clinton, Mills and Abedin not to destroy any records.
Reines and Sullivan did not respond to messages nor did attorneys for Mills and Abedin.
Clinton has turned over 30,490 work emails to the State Department in response to a request from the agency, but said that she deleted another 31,830 personal emails.
But in June, after Clinton’s longtime confidant Sidney Blumenthal gave the House committee emails between him and the former secretary of state, the State Department realized it was missing all or part of 15 emails.
THIS CONFIRMS DOUBTS ABOUT THE COMPLETENESS OF CLINTON’S SELF-SELECTED PUBLIC RECORD AND RAISES SERIOUS QUESTIONS ABOUT HER DECISION TO ERASE HER PERSONAL SERVER _ ESPECIALLY BEFORE IT COULD BE ANALYZED BY AN INDEPENDENT, NEUTRAL THIRD PARTY ARBITER.Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., chairman of House Select Committee on Benghazi
The Intelligence Community’s inspector general requested that the FBI scrutinize the security implications of Clinton’s use of the private email after determining that at least five emails containing classified information had been stored on her private server, including one email that State Department officials inadvertently released in response to a public records lawsuit. Two others are under review for final classification.
I. Charles McCullough III, the inspector general for the intelligence community, said State Department officials had warned that there were “potentially hundreds of classified emails” on Clinton’s private server.
The State Department has begun to release Clinton’s emails in response to a public records lawsuit. Clinton said that the use of personal email by State Department employees was permitted at the time, but State Department and White House officials decline to say whether she sought or received prior approval from anyone or whether anyone objected to it later.
The National Archives’ regulations permit the use of personal email for government business, but mandates that records must be kept.
2a) Hillary Clinton to turn over private email server to Justice Department
Hillary Clinton agreed to turn over her private email server to authorities on Tuesday, the same day an intelligence community inspector general told congressional committees that at least five emails from the server did contain classified information.
The decision to hand over the server, as well as a thumb drive of all her work-related emails to the Justice Department, represents an effort to blunt an expanding probe into her use of a private email account.
Clinton, now the Democratic presidential front-runner, "directed her team to give her email server that was used during her tenure as (secretary of state) to the Department of Justice, as well as a thumb drive containing copies of her emails already provided to the State Department," her spokesman, Nick Merrill, told CNN early Tuesday evening. "She pledged to cooperate with the government's security inquiry, and if there are more questions, we will continue to address them."
Merrill said in the meantime, Clinton's team "has worked with the State Department to ensure her emails are stored in a safe and secure manner."
The FBI, which is handling the matter, declined to comment Tuesday evening. David E. Kendall, Clinton's lawyer, did not immediately return messages seeking comment.
A senior Clinton campaign aide said the server hadn't yet changed hands as of Tuesday evening and Clinton's team is working with the Justice Department to arrange the logistics of the handover. The thumb drive, meanwhile, has been turned over. And Kendall, the aide said, has followed State Department guidance on safekeeping.
Clinton's campaign believes there are no emails from her State Department tenure on the server, since it was wiped clean after she turned over her work-related emails to the State Department, the aide said.
The aide said it's the Clinton campaign's understanding that the Justice Department isn't looking to reconstruct the server's history, but is instead concerned about the security of the emails today, since some are now classified, though they weren't classified or labeled as such at the time.
Boehner: 'It's about time'
For Clinton, the move -- which Republicans like House Speaker John Boehner have urged for months -- indicates her campaign sees a growing risk in the issue of her use of a private email server, which has stoked concerns about her trustworthiness.
"It's about time," Boehner said in a statement Tuesday night.
Since news broke in March of her use of a personal email address on a server kept in her Chappaqua, New York, home, Clinton has insisted that she's turned over all of her work-related emails to the State Department and deleted all others -- but wouldn't turn over her server to the government.
Clinton has been dogged by poll numbers showing that more Americans, by a margin of about 20 percentage points, say she's not trustworthy rather than trustworthy. A late July CNN/ORC poll found that 58% of all registered voters say it is extremely important that the next president be honest and trustworthy.
Rep. Trey Gowdy, who chairs the House Select Committee on Benghazi and has pushed for Clinton's emails for months, claimed credit for her decision to turn over the server.
"The revelation that Secretary Clinton exclusively used private email for official public business, and the multitude of issues that emanated from her decision, including this most recent one, demonstrates what can happen when Congress and those equally committed to exposing the truth, doggedly pursue facts and follow them," he said in a statement.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, said Clinton waited "a long time" before turning the server over.
"That's a long time for top secret classified information to be held by an unauthorized person outside of an approved, secure government facility," he said in a statement. "I look forward to the FBI answering my questions so the American people can be assured that everything has been done to protect our national security interests and hold accountable anyone who broke the rules."
Still, it's clear the GOP won't stop hitting Clinton on the campaign trail, accusing her of secrecy over her decision to wait five months to turn over the server.
Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus said in a statement Tuesday night that releasing the server does little to answer questions about Clinton's honesty.
"If Hillary Clinton believed in honesty and transparency, she would have turned over her secret server months ago to an independent arbiter, not as a last resort and to the Obama Justice Department," he said. "Of course, if she really cares about transparency, she would never have had a secret server in the first place."
Classified emails
Clinton's decision to hand over the server comes as the intelligence community's inspector general now says at least five emails stored on Clinton's server contained classified information. The documents were from a "limited sampling" of her emails and among those 40 reviewed, said the inspector general, Charles McCullough III.
On Tuesday, McCullough sent four of the emails to chairs of several congressional committees. In a cover letter, he said two of the four emails included information that has now been classified up to top secret.
One of the five emails has since been declassified because it was no longer time-sensitive. The intelligence community maintains the remaining two contained classified material, but is deferring to the State Department on whether they should be identified as such.
McCullough said in the past that "none of the emails we reviewed had classification or dissemination markings," but that some "should have been handled as classified, appropriately marked, and transmitted via a secure network." The State Department has told McCullough that "there are potentially hundreds of classified emails within the approximately 30,000 provided by former Secretary Clinton."
Republicans shared exclusively with CNN a review of those emails sent to Congress on Tuesday, which they said showed Clinton and her aides sent information that would later be classified to six people's private email addresses. They include former Deputy Secretary of State Bill Burns; Cheryl Mills, who was Clinton's chief of staff at the State Department; and Jake Sullivan, who served as Clinton's top foreign policy adviser. Clinton also emailed information that would later be classified to close confidant Sidney Blumenthal, whose communications with Clinton about Libya have become a focus of the House committee investigating the 2012 Benghazi attacks.
"The fact that classified information was sent to and from Hillary Clinton to at least six separate individuals and potentially many more demonstrates just how big of a risk her decision to use a secret server poses to our national security," Republican National Committee research director Raj Shah told CNN.
Widening probe
The probe into Clinton's email practices has now expanded to include some of her top aides as part of a larger investigation on the use of private email accounts by previous secretaries of state. The Republican chairmen of three Senate committees -- intelligence, homeland security and foreign relations -- sent a joint request in March for both inspectors general to investigate the personal emails of Clinton's aides.
"We will follow the facts wherever they lead, to include former aides and associates, as appropriate," said Douglas Welty, a spokesman for the State Department's inspector general.
In a July 17 letter to the State Department, Steve A. Linick, the State Department inspector general, said his office is reviewing "the use of personal communications hardware and software by five secretaries of state and their immediate staffs." The Office of the Intelligence Community Inspector General is assisting in the review.
One of the emails containing since-classified information was released to the public, prompting the intelligence community to ask the FBI to investigate the possible compromise of classified material. The State Department now has a team of analysts from the intelligence community to review Clinton's emails before any more are released to the public.
Of the two top-secret emails sent to Congress on Tuesday, State Department spokesman John Kirby said they have not been released to the public and the department is "taking steps to ensure the information is protected and stored appropriately" while the determination was made.
"Department employees circulated these emails on unclassified systems in 2009 and 2011, and ultimately some were forwarded to Secretary Clinton," Kirby said. "They were not marked as classified."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)
3)
Name
|
DC
Office Phone Number
|
State
Office Phone Number
|
Richard
Blumenthal D CT
|
202-224-2823
|
860-258-6940
|
Corey
Booker D NJ
|
202-224-3224
|
973-639-8700
|
Barbara
Boxer D CA
|
202-224-3553
|
916-448-2787
|
Sherrod
Brown D OH
|
202-224-23315
|
614-469-2083
|
Kirsten
Gillibrand D NY
|
202-224-4451
|
518-431-0120
|
Lindsey
Graham R SC *
|
202-224-5972
|
803-933-0112
|
Susan
Collins R ME
|
202-224-2523
|
207-780-3575
|
Johnny
Isakson R GA *
|
202-224-3643
|
770-661-0999
|
Claire
McCaskill D MO
|
202-228-6326
|
816-421-1639
|
Patrick
Leahy D VT
|
202-224-4242
|
802-863-2525
|
Jeanne
Shaheen D NH
|
202-224-2841
|
603-647-7500
|
John
McCain R AZ
|
202-224-2235
|
602-952-2410
|
Heidi
Heitkamp D ND
|
202-224-2043
|
701-258-4648
|
Mitch
McConnell R KY *
|
202-224-2541
|
502-582-6304
|
Robert
Menendez D NJ
|
202-224-4744
|
973-645-3030
|
Barbara
Mikulski D MD
|
202-224-4654
|
410-9624510
|
Jack
Reed D RI
|
202-224-4642
|
401-528-5200
|
Mark
Warner D VA
|
202-224-2023
|
703-442-0670
|
Harry
Reid D
NV
|
202-224-3542
|
702-388-5020
|
Charles
Schumer D NY *
|
202-224-6542
|
518-431-4070
|
Joe
Manchin D WV
|
202-224-3954
|
304-342-5855
|
Debbie
Stabenow D MI
|
202-224-4822
|
616-975-0052
|
Dick
Durbin D IL
|
202-224-2152
|
312-353-4952
|
Tom
Udall D NM
|
202-224-6621
|
505-346-6791
|
Diane
Feinstein (CA)
|
202-224-3841
|
415-393-0707
|
No comments:
Post a Comment