Wednesday, July 27, 2016

WikiLeaks Publishes 23,035 Clinton E-mails Marked Classified When She Received Them!

New American ^ | Tuesday, 26 July 2016 | C. Mitchell Shaw 

After spending more than a year denying — and avoiding indictment for — sending and receiving classified information over her unsecured, private e-mail server, Hillary Clinton still can’t shake the truth. Besides the DNC e-mails that are making waves in the news because they show that the Democratic National Committee violated its own rules to help Clinton win the Democrat presidential nomination, WikiLeaks also released a trove of leaked e-mails from Clinton’s server. Those e-mails prove irrefutably that Clinton sent and received information that was classified at the time.
After announcing last month that the next leak published by his organization would almost certainly lead to a Clinton indictment, Julian Assange has made good on his word. The leaked Clinton e-mails were released before the DNC e-mails, but got pushed aside in the news cycle when police officers in Dallas and Baton Rouge were murdered as part of the war on police. With the news of the DNC leaks and Clinton’s assured nomination, the Clinton leaks need to be examined and considered.

The e-mails published by WikiLeaks — 23,035 in all — are all from her first year as secretary of state and are all marked “(C)” for “confidential” — a designation for classified information. Clinton held that office for another three years. Assuming her carelessness — and recalcitrance — continued throughout her tenure, she may well have sent and/or received almost 100,000 classified e-mails over her server during her time in office. It is difficult to imagine a greater threat to national security.
FBI Director James Comey may have attempted to sell the line that Clinton did not intend to break the law, but considering the size and scope of her mishandling of sensitive intelligence, it is more than a little hard to swallow what Comey was dishing out. Considering that the Justice Department has prosecuted people for far smaller infractions, it will be interesting to see if — now that the magnitude of Clinton’s crimes is known — Comey will continue to oppose her indictment.
Assange — with an obvious nod toward the irony involved — pointed out in an interview with ITV last month that the Obama administration has prosecuted a number of whistleblowers in recent years. WikiLeaks — which Assange started and continues to run while in exile — relies on whistleblowers, so his bias is easily understood.
While testifying before a House Oversight Committee, Comey was questioned about his assertion that Clinton did not know she was breaking the law because she did not know what a classified marking was. As The Hill reported, Comey answered:
“No, not that she would have no idea what a classified marking would be,” Comey responded. “It’s an interesting question whether she ... was actually sophisticated enough to understand what a C in [parentheses] means.”
“You asked me if I would assume someone would know,” he added. “Probably before this investigation, I would have. I am not so sure of that any longer. I think it’s possible — possible — that she didn’t know what a C meant when she saw it in the body of an email like that.”
While the too-stupid-to-know-it-was-criminal defense is not exactly new, it is hardly something one would expect on the resumé of a presidential candidate. Besides that, Comey was addressing 113 e-mails he says were classified. Now that it is known that at least 23,035 were marked as classified, perhaps Comey will offer the defense that he isn’t qualified for his post either.
Setting aside Comey’s asinine defense of Clinton’s criminal actions based on her supposed ignorance, the fact is that she was not ignorant. Clinton signed two non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) as part of her appointment as secretary of state. Those NDAs spelled out — in language clear enough to be understood even by someone who is not “sophisticated” — her responsibilities and obligations under the law. As this writer reported when the first of those two NDAs came to light:
The NDA signed by Mrs. Clinton on her second day as secretary of state spells out — in language so clear that the meaning of the word "is" is quite unambiguous — her responsibility in handling the sensitive information to which she would have access in her new job. One part reads, "I have been advised that the unauthorized disclosure, unauthorized retention, or negligent handling of SCI [Sensitive Compartmented Information] by me could cause irreparable injury to the United States or be used to advantage by a foreign nation." The agreement goes on to address how Secretary Clinton could be sure she was abiding by the letter and the spirit of the agreement. "I understand that it is my responsibility to consult with appropriate management authorities in the Department ... in order to ensure that I know whether information or material within my knowledge or control ... might be SCI," the NDA says.
These 23,035 e-mails were marked “(C),” and it was Clinton’s legal responsibility to recognize that. She is, after all, a graduate of law school and was licensed to practice law until 2002. If she truly is that ignorant of the law, should she be running for president?
Here, for example, are the first few paragraphs of one of the documents Clinton received via her unsecured, private e-mail server:
1. (U) This is a PRT Anbar cable.
2. (C) SUMMARY: Tension between the Iraqi Police and the judiciary was on display at the weekly Anbar Operations Command meeting covering security issues. Similar feelings were present at PRToffs meeting with Provincial Chief Judge Mohammed Al-Kubaisi. END SUMMARY.
3. (C) On February 22, PRToff attended the Anbar Operations Command (AOC) weekly security meeting at the Blue Diamond Iraqi Army facility. Staff Major General (sMG) Aziz, appearing vigorous and healthy, chaired the meeting for the first time since his medical treatment in Turkey. Provincial Chief of Police (PCOP) sMG Baha Al-Karkhi, Deputy Governor Hikmat Jasim Zaidan and Investigative Judge (IJ) Ghanim Al-Azawi were also present.
4. (C) The initial interchange at the meeting was characterized by the usual Iraqi Police (IP) complaints of judicial shortcomings and focused on the IP's inability to find an investigative judge over the weekend to approve warrants. Investigative Judge Ghanim responded that an IJ was always available and that police should "just knock on my door." He explained that CPA Administrator Paul Bremer had issued an order years earlier requiring a lawyer to be present at the initial appearance of a suspect and said the absence of a lawyer was the real impediment to prosecuting cases. sMG Aziz countered that this law was enacted a long time ago and that terrorist suspects should be treated differently from other criminals since theirs was a special crime against society. He asked that the laws be changed in order to allow detention of terror suspects without a warrant via a streamlined process. IJ Ghanim responded that the existing judicial process was sound and provided a good example of the rule of law to the citizenry.
This writer will admit to not being “sophisticated enough to understand” what much of this document discusses, but then this writer is not secretary of state and has not signed legal forms agreeing that "I understand that it is my responsibility to consult with appropriate management authorities in the Department ... in order to ensure that I know whether information or material within my knowledge or control ... might be” classified. Even with my lack of sophistication, though, a couple of things stand out to me. That “(C)” could only mean a handful of things: (1) It could denote the ordering of paragraphs. But since almost all of the paragraphs are labeled “(C),” that is probably not correct. (2) It could mean that that paragraph is protected by a copyright. Again, since the product of government can’t be copyrighted, that too, is probably not the right answer. (3) I should go ask one of the “appropriate management authorities in the Department” — preferably one who is sufficiently “sophisticated” — what it means just “to ensure that I know whether information or material within my knowledge or control ... might be” classified.
What secretary Clinton did, though was ignore that designation at least 23,035 times in her first year in office alone. And now, she’s running for president.
If Assange is correct and this leak leads to her indictment, it may be that Judge Napolitano’s prediction from earlier this year will come true. At the end of a video about Clinton’s e-mail scandal, he asked, “Don't you want to know before your nominating process is complete if your likely nominee will be a criminal defendant in the Fall?”

Democrats Build Double-Wall Border Fence to Keep Out Unwanted Protesters (WTF?) ^ | 7/26/2016 | Bob Price 

Delegates to the Democratic National Convention are now protected from unwanted protesters by a giant double-wall border fence. The border fence was doubled to make sure people without proper documentation could not illegally enter the convention area.
Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) pointed out the hypocrisy of the Democrats in building a wall around their convention when they refuse to build a wall to secure the American border with Mexico, Breitbart News’ Neil Munro reported in June. “It’s interesting that the Democratic National Committee will have a wall around their convention to keep unapproved people out while at the same time, their presumptive nominee, Hillary Clinton, pushes for open borders policies that are even more radical than President Obama’s,” Sessions said in written statement.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

WikiLeaks Reveals Media Collusion ^ | July 27, 2016 | Brent Bozell 
Posted on 7/27/2016, 6:29:58 AM by Kaslin

The radical leftist collective known as WikiLeaks tried to ruin the Democratic convention by posting a trove of Democratic National Committee emails that easily proved that party leader Debbie Wasserman Schultz and her staff shunned neutrality in favor of pushing Hillary Clinton's nomination. The Bernie Sanders socialists were enraged, their suspicions confirmed.
The media paid some attention to that, especially when Schultz was quickly ousted from her job. Guess what else was confirmed, which the media largely skipped over? The evidence in the emails that revealed great chumminess and coordination between Democrats and the supposedly "objective" national press.
You really don't need an email collection to know this. After all, NBC "News" hired Chelsea Clinton for $600,000 a year to make some of the most sleep-inducing "happy news" stories to ever air on television. She was producing stories less than once a month, or more than $50,000 a pop.
In February, Gawker made a Freedom of Information Act request for government emails from Hillary Clinton's PR aide Philippe Reines. The disclosed emails exposed Politico big-foot Mike Allen. He offered a cozy Politico chat with Chelsea Clinton: "No one besides me would ask her a question, and you and I would agree on them precisely in advance." When exposed, Allen spun the offer as "clumsy."
Well, the latest emails demonstrate Politico is still making a mockery of journalistic "independence." We now learn that "reporter" Ken Vogel sent a story on Clinton fundraising to DNC national press secretary Mark Paustenbach for a pre-publication review. Now, checking for confirmation of some numbers or confirming a quote -- that's OK. But the entire story? That is journalistic malpractice. The Democrats have Politico on a leash.
Reporters try to present a friendly face to most of their subjects, but they don't always boast, "Hey, you'll like this story I did." That's what happened with Juliet Eilperin, White House bureau chief for The Washington Post. She sent an email to Paustenbach cooing, "Dear Mark, I think you all will be totally fine with it. Thanks again for all your help. Best, Juliet." So the DNC gives blessings now? The front-page story was headlined: "Obama, who once stood as party outsider, now works to strengthen Democrats." The story wasn't as bad as a 2014 front-page puff piece from Eilperin touting how the Obama White House has changed the junk-food culture: "Calorie counts and hummus with vegetables are in." You don't need an email to see the chumminess.
CNN commentator Maria Cardona is identified on air as a Democrat, but the emails show that disclosure is a little incomplete. In emailed exchanges with DNC spinners, Cardona repeatedly asked how to perfect an op-ed for Collusion? Liberals will probably see no conflict of interest. Now remember how many fits the liberals have thrown over CNN in-house Trump analyst Corey Lewandowski still getting checks from The Donald.
Emails also show Wasserman Schultz yelling at reporters like they were servants -- and well, the media coverage can leave that impression. She titled an email to NBC's Chuck Todd "Chuck, This Must Stop" when Mika Brzezinski called for her to resign on "Morning Joe." DNC aides tried to arrange a meeting between the warring parties, but Todd replied, "Between us, do you think that's a good idea?" Wasserman Schultz scuttled it, wondering if Brzezinski "even matters, to be frank." Ouch.
The primary reason the media would skip covering their own lack of independence is obvious. The public already believes they aggressively favor one side in our political debates. Why put a spotlight on your problem? Transparency is a media buzzword, but it never applies to their own partisan games.















Not a word!






Sorry Ass




Running Mate