Do YOU Trust Benghazi/Bergdahl Liar?


John R. Houk

© April 5, 2017

 

Susan Rice is a typical lying Dem that unmasked Trump campaign staff names that did NOTHING illegal while using an investigation of Russian collusion/voting interference as a MERE excuse to politically impugn Donald Trump during the 2016 election and during the Obama lame duck period leading President Trump’s inauguration!!!!

 

AND even more reprehensible is the Left Stream Media either didn’t report on Ly’n Rice or defended her for doing nothing wrong while simultaneously still stick to the UNPROVEN – ergo lie – accusation the President Trump colluded with the Russians to defeat Crooked Hillary in the 2016 election cycle.

 

Susan Rice Lying to Americans on 5 MSM Networks

 

 

For any American to believe Rice’s words that she “leaked nothing to nobody,” were also duped by her lies about Benghazi and her lies the traitor Bergdahl was an upstanding loyal American: “He served the United States with honor and distinction …”

 

VIDEO: Susan Rice: Bergdahl Served With ‘Honor and Distinction’

 

Posted by PoliticalTurkey1

Published on Jun 2, 2014

 

Hmm … IF SUSAN RICE SAYS SHE DIDN’T UNMASK TRUMP SURVEILLANCE FOR POLITICAL PURPOSES, I CAN CONFIDENTLY SAY “I DON’T BELIEVE HER!”

 

I have found loads of articles that question the veracity of Susan Rice and Barack Obama. The Left Stream Media will not take up the question of reliability because they are essentially a propaganda of Obama, The Dems and the Left in general.

 

I am cross posting two articles. One from The Federalist posted today and another from Fox News’ Adam Housley post on April third. At the end, I will provide some links (perhaps some excerpts) from other sources that pretty much have the same opinion about Susan Rice but may add some details lacking between each article.

 

JRH 4/5/17

Please Support NCCR

*****************

Why Susan Rice’s Role In The Obama Spying Story Is A Big Deal

 

By Mollie Hemingway

April 5, 2017

The Federalist

 

Susan Rice was one Obama official who requested the unmasking of Trump associates’ information that was widely disseminated. Here’s why that’s significant.

 

Since Donald Trump won the election for president in November, U.S. media outlets have received and eagerly published selective, damaging leaks about him from anonymous intelligence officials. The general effort, which appeared highly coordinated, was an effort to delegitimize Trump’s election and paint him as a stooge of Russia or otherwise unfit for office.

 

The media outlets claimed their information came from very highly placed officials in the Obama administration. Even if they hadn’t claimed their anonymous sources were Obama officials, the information they were leaking, such as the name of a U.S. citizen caught up in surveillance by the Obama administration, would have been known only by highly placed intelligence officials.

 

As the publishers of the information that was illegally disclosed, many media outlets weren’t keen to make a story, much less a big story, about the leak campaign by Obama officials. This despite the fact that the same Obama officials who had run the infamous Iran Echo Chamber operation, in which reporters were duped into reporting the Obama administration’s spin on the Iran deal, had bragged that they’d continue a highly developed communications operation in the Trump era.

 

In early March, Donald Trump tweeted out a series of unsubstantiated claims:

 

Trump Tweets on BHO Wiretapping

 

 

Two weeks ago, the chair of the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Devin Nunes, revealed that he’d seen dozens of reports featuring unmasked information on Trump and his associates and family members. He said these reports arose out of incidental collection during FISA surveillance, had nothing to do with Russia, were disseminated widely throughout the intelligence agencies, and contained little to no foreign intelligence value.

 

It should go without saying that the country’s powerful surveillance capabilities are not to be used against American citizens so that such unmasking should be exceedingly rare, be done for only the strongest reasons, and make pains to avoid the appearance of politicization. Nunes said the incidental collection might be legal but the unmasked dissemination of information about political opponents was disconcerting.

 

Despite the bombshell allegations, many in the media responded by downplaying or denigrating his news, distracting with process complaints, or quickly thrown-together stories from anonymous sources with no evidence claiming more breathless wrongdoing with Russia.

 

On Monday, Eli Lake of Bloomberg Views reported that sources said “Susan Rice requested the identities of U.S. persons in raw intelligence reports on dozens of occasions that connect to the Donald Trump transition and campaign, according to U.S. officials familiar with the matter.” Ezra Cohen-Watnick, the National Security Council’s senior director for intelligence, was conducting a review of unmasking procedures when he “discovered Rice’s multiple requests to unmask U.S. persons in intelligence reports that related to Trump transition activities.”

 

Susan Rice was Obama’s National Security Advisor for his second term.

 

Again, many in the media are attempting to downplay, denigrate and distract, some are doing so shamelessly. Here are five reasons why this is a story worth covering:

 

1) Susan Rice’s Story Changed Dramatically From Two Weeks Ago

 

Two weeks ago, PBS’ Judy Woodruff asked Rice a very general question about Nunes’ claims:

 

JUDY WOODRUFF: I began by asking about the allegations leveled today by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes that Trump transition officials, including the president, may have been swept up in surveillance of foreigners at the end of the Obama administration.

 

SUSAN RICE, Former U.S. National Security Adviser: I know nothing about this. I was surprised to see reports from Chairman Nunes on that count today.

 

I know nothing about this, she said.

 

Yesterday, in a damage control interview with prominent Democratic journalist Andrea Mitchell, Rice admitted her unmasking efforts and said they were routine. Mitchell’s 16-minute interview involved no tough questions. Mitchell asked, “Did you seek to unmask the names of people involved in the Trump transition?” Rice responded in the Clintonian fashion, “Absolutely not for any political purposes.” A natural follow-up would have been if she requested the unmasking for any other purpose. It didn’t occur to Mitchell. Instead she followed-up with the related question, “Did you leak?” to which Rice responded, somewhat confusingly, “I leaked nothing to nobody.”

 

Somehow Rice tried to claim later that her initial statement of having no clue about Nunes’ earlier claim was not at odds with her 16-minute answer about her unmasking efforts.

 

Rice has a reputation for dishonesty, most notably for her claim that a September 11, 2012, attack in Libya that killed four Americans was a spontaneous result of anger at a video critical of Islam. At the time she said this, the State Department knew well that it was a coordinated terrorist attack.

 

Rice also falsely claimed that Bowe Bergdahl “served the United States with honor and distinction,” when critics began raising questions about why President Obama traded high-value Taliban detainees and a ransom for the Army deserter. Bergdahl is expected to face a court-martial in August for desertion and misbehavior before the enemy. His desertion was already known at the time Rice made her comments.

 

2) The Unmasking Was Related To Political Information

 

When Nunes first alerted the public about his concerns over the unmasking and dissemination, he noted that the information had nothing to do with Russia and had little to no intelligence value. Lake reported that Rice’s multiple unmasking requests were related to reports on Trump transition activities. She is said to have requested the identities of Americans in reports of monitored conversations between foreign officials discussing the Trump transition and in surveilled contact between the Trump team and monitored foreign officials.

 

“One U.S. official familiar with the reports said they contained valuable political information on the Trump transition such as whom the Trump team was meeting, the views of Trump associates on foreign policy matters and plans for the incoming administration,” according to Lake.

 

When Rice gave her interview to the friendly journalist Mitchell, she gave a hypothetical example of when it would be appropriate to request an unmasking of a U.S. citizen’s name that was caught up in foreign surveillance. She said that if two foreigners were talking about a terrorist attack to be committed with a U.S. citizen, she would seek out that name. That’s a great hypothetical. And no one is making the claim that Susan Rice sought to unmask a Trump family member or transition member’s name because she believed they were about to set off a bomb. They are making the claim that the information in the reports was politically valuable and related to the Trump transition.

 

3) Susan Rice Worked In The White House

 

Rice was known as Obama’s “right-hand woman,” “like a sister,” and was his National Security Advisor throughout his second term.

 

Weeks ago, diplomat Richard Grennell said that if Rice were involved, that would implicate President Obama:

 

‘But within that realm there could have easily been a political calculation to listen in, and then to take those transcripts and the summaries of those transcripts, make sure that those in the NSC and the political people – like Ben Rhodes and Susan Rice – make sure that they have them so they can leak them to reporters.’

 

‘I think that it would be easy to figure out if Susan Rice and Ben Rhodes knew about this,’ he added, ‘because if they did, clearly President Obama knew about it.’

 

Even if Rice wasn’t working with Obama on this effort or informing him of her activities, her role as National Security Advisor means her unmasking request in this instance doesn’t make sense, according to Andrew McCarthy. If the identities of U.S. citizens had intelligence value, it would have been unmasked by agencies that conduct investigations, he wrote:

 

Consequently, if unmasking was relevant to the Russia investigation, it would have been done by those three agencies. And if it had been critical to know the identities of Americans caught up in other foreign intelligence efforts, the agencies that collect the information and conduct investigations would have unmasked it. Because they are the agencies that collect and refine intelligence ‘products’ for the rest of the ‘intelligence community,’ they are responsible for any unmasking; and they do it under ‘minimization’ standards that FBI Director James Comey, in recent congressional testimony, described as ‘obsessive’ in their determination to protect the identities and privacy of Americans.

 

Understand: There would have been no intelligence need for Susan Rice to ask for identities to be unmasked. If there had been a real need to reveal the identities — an intelligence need based on American interests — the unmasking would have been done by the investigating agencies. The national-security adviser is not an investigator. She is a White House staffer. The president’s staff is a consumer of intelligence, not a generator or collector of it. If Susan Rice was unmasking Americans, it was not to fulfill an intelligence need based on American interests; it was to fulfill a political desire based on Democratic-party interests.

 

It is unclear what President Obama knew about Rice’s successful request to unmask information on Trump transition members.

 

4) This Substantiates Nunes’ Claim

 

When Nunes told the public that information about the Trump team had been collected, unmasked, and widely disseminated, many media figures questioned the legitimacy of his claim. With the news that no less than Susan Rice requested unmasking of political operatives, it appears that Nunes was onto something.

 

Also of note, Rep. Adam Schiff, the ranking Democratic member on the committee, had been very upset with Nunes for telling the public and the White House about the reports he’d seen before briefing the committee. However, after Schiff saw the information, he more or less went quiet. He didn’t say the reports were a distraction or unimportant, unlike other Democratic operatives.

 

5) Civil Liberties Questions Remain

 

The most frequent defense of the Obama administration’s unmasking efforts is that incidental information collection on U.S. citizens is routine, and that requests to unmask that information about U.S. citizens is also routine. When we learn more about the widespread dissemination of such information, we can anticipate that the media and other Democrats will say that such dissemination is more than routine.

 

When Nunes revealed the collection, unmasking, and dissemination news, he specifically referenced the incidental information collection on members of Congress during the Iran deal. The U.S. spies on foreign leaders, including Benjamin Netanyahu and his advisors. As a result, the Obama administration picked up information on politically valuable information:

 

White House officials believed the intercepted information could be valuable to counter Mr. Netanyahu’s campaign. They also recognized that asking for it was politically risky. So, wary of a paper trail stemming from a request, the White House let the NSA decide what to share and what to withhold, officials said. ‘We didn’t say, ‘Do it,’ ‘a senior U.S. official said. ‘We didn’t say, ‘Don’t do it.’ ‘

 

Stepped-up NSA eavesdropping revealed to the White House how Mr. Netanyahu and his advisers had leaked details of the U.S.-Iran negotiations—learned through Israeli spying operations—to undermine the talks; coordinated talking points with Jewish-American groups against the deal; and asked undecided lawmakers what it would take to win their votes, according to current and former officials familiar with the intercepts.

 

The Bush administration also collected and used information on members of Congress this way.

 

In some ways, this “routine” defense of collecting and disseminating information on political adversaries is the most disconcerting. The federal government’s surveillance powers are intense, from metadata collection to surveillance of communications. Such information is easily weaponized and exceedingly difficult to oversee for accountability purposes.

 

As one journalist who used to be worried about such things wrote a few years ago:

 

Instead, the NSA’s approach of grabbing up every bit of information that it can guarantees that the metadata and sometimes even the content of legislator communications are swept up, and will continue to be available to a secretive class of executive branch employees for years to come. There is obvious potential that this will be exploited with abusive intent–it isn’t like we’ve never had a president try to spy on his political opponents before! But even absent any nefarious motives, incidentally collected data could damage the integrity of our political system.

 

Members of the media should try to cover, rather than cover up, this aspect of the story. The civil liberties of U.S. citizens are of vital importance and the unmasking of information on them should not be routine, not regular, and not a light matter.

 

The media have thousands of questions to force answers on regarding this important story. As Ari Fleischer wrote on Twitter:

 

About Susan Rice: The President’s National Security Advisor has authority to request unmasking of American names from intel agencies.

 

But in this instance, I am stunned by the lack of curiosity most media have shown about the facts and circumstances present here.

 

This is a good example of media giving soft coverage to President Obama while they’re hard on the GOP in general & Trump in particular.

 

Bear in mind, Rice is the official who praised Bowe Bergdahl for his ‘honorable service’ & claimed he was captured ‘on the battlefield.’

 

She also said two weeks ago in a TV interview that she didn’t know anything about the unmasking.

 

I would have thought the media would ask tough questions. There is no reason this should be a FOX News and conservative press issue only.

 

If I were a reporter, I would want to know why Rice sought the unmasking. The FBI is investigating possible Trump collusion, not the WH.

 

How often did she ask? What reasons did she give? (Each request is tracked and catalogued in writing by the NSA. A procedure exists.)

 

The info would have been provided ONLY to her as the requester. It is highly classified. Did she share it? With whom? Why?

 

If she shared it with anyone, why did she do so? What did they do with it? Did they give it to the media or tell media about it?

 

One of the reasons we live in a polarized era is because too many reporters look the other way at issues like this. Bias is real.

 

It’s not too late. The press knows how to dig and get answers. I hope they do so.

 

It’s not just Rice. She wasn’t the only person to request the unmasking of Trump officials regarding politically sensitive operations, and she wasn’t the person who requested that Flynn’s name be unmasked, meaning she requested at least one other Trump associate’s unmasking. We still don’t know who committed the crime of leaking Flynn’s name to the Washington Post. It’s time to start working on covering this story, rather than running interference for anonymous sources.

 

Mollie Ziegler Hemingway is a senior editor at The Federalist. Follow her on Twitter at @mzhemingway

 

+++

Susan Rice requested to unmask names of Trump transition officials, sources say

 

By Adam Housley

April 03, 2017

Fox News

 

Multiple sources tell Fox News that Susan Rice, former national security adviser under then-President Barack Obama, requested to unmask the names of Trump transition officials caught up in surveillance.

 

The unmasked names, of people associated with Donald Trump, were then sent to all those at the National Security Council, some at the Defense Department, then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and then-CIA Director John Brennan – essentially, the officials at the top, including former Rice deputy Ben Rhodes.

 

The names were part of incidental electronic surveillance of candidate and President-elect Trump and people close to him, including family members, for up to a year before he took office.

 

It was not clear how Rice knew to ask for the names to be unmasked, but the question was being posed by the sources late Monday.

 

Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump

 

Such amazing reporting on unmasking and the crooked scheme against us by @foxandfriends. “Spied on before nomination.” The real story.

 

5:15 AM – 3 Apr 2017

 

“What I know is this …  If the intelligence community professionals decide that there’s some value, national security, foreign policy or otherwise in unmasking someone, they will grant those requests,” former Obama State Department spokeswoman and Fox News contributor Marie Harf told Fox News’ Martha MacCallum on “The First 100 Days. “And we have seen no evidence … that there was partisan political notice behind this and we can’t say that unless there’s actual evidence to back that up.”

 

White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer, asked about the revelations at Monday’s briefing, declined to comment specifically on what role Rice may have played or officials’ motives.

 

“I’m not going to comment on this any further until [congressional] committees have come to a conclusion,” he said, while contrasting the media’s alleged “lack” of interest in these revelations with the intense coverage of suspected Trump-Russia links.

 

When names of Americans are incidentally collected, they are supposed to be masked, meaning the name or names are redacted from reports – whether it is international or domestic collection, unless it is an issue of national security, crime or if their security is threatened in any way. There are loopholes and ways to unmask through backchannels, but Americans are supposed to be protected from incidental collection. Sources told Fox News that in this case, they were not.

 

This comes in the wake of Evelyn Farkas’ television interview last month in which the former Obama deputy secretary of defense said in part: “I was urging my former colleagues and, frankly speaking, the people on the Hill – it was more actually aimed at telling the Hill people, get as much information as you can, get as much intelligence as you can, before President Obama leaves the administration.”

 

Meanwhile, Fox News also is told that House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes knew about unmasking and leaking back in January, well before President Trump’s tweet in March alleging wiretapping.

 

Nunes has faced criticism from Democrats for viewing pertinent documents on White House grounds and announcing their contents to the press. But sources said “the intelligence agencies slow-rolled Nunes. He could have seen the logs at other places besides the White House SCIF [secure facility], but it had already been a few weeks. So he went to the White House because he could protect his sources and he could get to the logs.”

 

As the Obama administration left office, it also approved new rules that gave the NSA much broader powers by relaxing the rules about sharing intercepted personal communications and the ability to share those with 16 other intelligence agencies.

 

Rice is no stranger to controversy. As the U.S. Ambassador to the UN, she appeared on several Sunday news shows to defend the adminstration’s [sic] later debunked claim that the Sept. 11, 2012 attacks on a U.S. consulate in Libya was triggered by an Internet video.

 

Rice also told ABC News in 2014 that Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl “served the United States with honor and distinction” and that he “wasn’t simply a hostage; he was an American prisoner of war captured on the battlefield.”

 

Bergdahl is currently facing court-martial on charges of desertion and misbehavior before the enemy for allegedly walking off his post in Afghanistan.

 

Adam Housley joined Fox News Channel (FNC) in 2001 and currently serves as a Los Angeles-based senior correspondent.

 

+++

SOURCES: SUSAN RICE BEHIND UNMASKING OF TRUMP OFFICIALS

White House counsel reportedly ID’d former national security adviser

 

By GARTH KANT

Updated: 04/03/2017 at 11:05 PM

WND

 

WASHINGTON – Multiple reports indicate former National Security Adviser Susan Rice was the Obama administration official who requested the unmasking of incoming Trump administration officials.

 

Mike Cernovich broke the story in an article in Medium on Sunday that said, “The White House Counsel’s office identified Rice as the person responsible for the unmasking after examining Rice’s document log requests.”

 

Unmasking is the revealing of names within the intelligence community of U.S. citizens whose communications were monitored during foreign surveillance.

 

According to Fox News, the unmasked names of people associated with Donald Trump were sent widely to top officials in the Obama administration.

 

That is a potential felony.

 

The unmasked names were reportedly sent to every member of the National Security Council, former Rice deputy Ben Rhodes, then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, then-CIA Director John Brennan and some officials at the Defense Department.

 

The NSA is required to remove the names of Americans incidentally collected during foreign surveillance before sharing intelligence with other agencies unless there is an issue of national security, but Rice reportedly requested the unmasking of the identities of Trump associates.

 

Sources said …….

 

+++

BOMBSHELL REPORT: Obama National Security Advisor SUSAN RICE Behind Unmasking Of Trump Transition Team

 

By BEN SHAPIRO

APRIL 3, 2017

Daily Wire

 

In a massive scoop, on Monday morning Eli Lake of Bloomberg reported that Barack Obama’s national security advisor, Susan Rice, repeatedly requested information from the intelligence community on members of the Trump transition team and campaign, unmasking them to an audience beyond the intelligence community in the process. Normally, raw intelligence masks the identity of American citizens caught up in legal surveillance of other targets.

 

Here’s Lake:

 

In February [National Security Council senior director for intelligence] Cohen-Watnick discovered Rice’s multiple requests to unmask U.S. persons in intelligence reports that related to Trump transition activities. He brought this to the attention of the White House General Counsel’s office, who reviewed more of Rice’s requests and instructed him to end his own research into the unmasking policy. The intelligence reports were summaries of monitored conversations – primarily between foreign officials discussing the Trump transition, but also in some cases direct contact between members of the Trump team and monitored foreign officials. One U.S. official familiar with the reports said they contained valuable political information on the Trump transition such as whom the Trump team was meeting, the views of Trump associates on foreign policy matters and plans for the incoming administration. 

 

Rice denied that she knew anything about members of the Trump transition caught up in incidental intelligence gathering last month. As Lake also points out, the revelation that Rice requested the documents would explain House Intelligence Chair Devin Nunes’ trip to the White House two weeks ago – he needed to go there to view Rice’s missives. It would also explain why Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), the most ardent Trump critic on wiretapping and leaks, suddenly went silent over the weekend after seeing documents the White House presented to him.

 

This is indeed a huge story for the Trump White House. It doesn’t change the inaccuracy of Trump’s accusations that he was wiretapped by the Obama administration – there is still zero evidence to support that claim. But it demonstrates that the Trump team was not only targeted by members of the Obama intelligence community for unmasking and likely leaking, but that such unmasking went to the very top of the Obama administration.

 

And here’s another inconvenient fact …

 

+++

Benghazi Liar Susan Rice’s Treachery Continues

 

By Daniel John Sobieski

April 4, 2017

American Thinker

 

Call it the tale of two National Security Advisers, Michael Flynn and Susan Rice. As much as Flynn has taken fire as being an architect of unspecified “collusion” with the Russians, Susan Rice has been like the iceberg that sank the Titanic — barely visible above water but dangerous enough to threaten the Trump administration’s ship of state.

 

As reported by Circa News, Rice, while serving as Obama’s National Security Adviser, requested the unmasking of the names of Team Trump officials mentioned in the so-called “incidental” surveillance  of the Trump transition team:

 

Computer logs that former President Obama’s team left behind in the White House indicate his national security adviser Susan Rice accessed numerous intelligence reports during Obama’s last seven months in office that contained National Security Agency intercepts involving Donald Trump and his associates, Circa has learned.

 

Intelligence sources said the logs discovered by National Security Council staff suggested Rice’s interest in the NSA materials, some of which included unmasked Americans’ identities, appeared to begin last July around the time Trump secured the GOP nomination and accelerated after Trump’s election in November launched a transition that continued through January.

 

The intelligence reports included some intercepts of Americans talking to foreigners and many more involving foreign leaders talking about the future president, his campaign associates or his transition, the sources said. Most if not all had nothing to do with the Russian election interference scandal, the sources said, speaking only on condition of anonymity given the sensitive nature of the materials.

 

Ordinarily, such references to Americans would be redacted or minimized by the NSA before being shared with outside intelligence sources, but in these cases names were sometimes unmasked at the request of Rice or the intelligence reports were specific enough that the American’s identity was easily ascertained, the sources said.

 

Well, isn’t that special? While Trump’s pick for this sensitive post was under scrutiny, Obama’s adviser was doing opposition research which involved data mining classified intelligence reports. Rice requested the unmasking of names, something only three people, according to Circa, were authorized to do:

 

Dozens of times in 2016, those intelligence reports identified Americans who were directly intercepted talking to foreign sources or were the subject of conversations between two or more monitored foreign figures. Sometimes the Americans’ names were officially unmasked; other times they were so specifically described in the reports that their identities were readily discernible. Among those cleared to request and consume unmasked NSA-based intelligence reports about U.S. citizens were Obama’s national security adviser Susan Rice, his CIA Director John Brennan and then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch.

 

If Susan Rice had worked for Richard Nixon, she could have been one of his Watergate “plumbers”, perhaps retiring as plumber emeritus. We are all familiar with Susan Rice’s tour of the Sunday talk shows after the Benghazi terrorist attack. That was no accident, but a calculated part of the Obama administration’s disinformation campaign to protect President Obama’s reelection chances and …

 

+++

‘Absolutely false’: Top Obama adviser denies she ‘unmasked’ Trump associates for political purposes

 

By Natasha Bertrand

April 4, 2017

Business Insider

 

Former national security adviser Susan Rice told MSNBC on Tuesday that allegations she “unmasked” associates of Donald Trump for political reasons while she served in the Obama administration were “absolutely false.”

 

Bloomberg and Fox on Monday reported that Rice had tried to unmask, or learn the identities of, officials on Trump’s transition team whose conversations with foreign agents — or conversations those agents were having about the transition officials — were incidentally collected during routine intelligence-gathering operations. The Daily Caller then reported that Rice had created a “spreadsheet” with the names she had unmasked.

 

“The allegation is that somehow Obama administration officials utilized intelligence for political purposes,” Rice told MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell. “That’s absolutely false. [Yeah right, & she never lied about Benghazi either]

 

“I was the National Security Adviser.  My job is to protect the American people and the security of our country.  That’s …

 

+++

Rand Paul calls for Susan Rice to testify on unmasking Trump officials

 

By Juliegrace Brufke, DCNF

April 4, 2017 

BizPAC Review

 

GOP Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul said he believes former National Security Advisor Susan Rice should testify before Congress on her request to unmask the names of Trump transition officials collected during routine intelligence-gathering operations.

 

Paul argued the situation should not be downplayed, saying reforms need to be made to prevent individuals from being blackmailed on personal aspects of their lives through unmasking. He noted there was nothing stopping the former administration from looking through Trump officials and national security advisors’ conversations during the transition window.

 

“If it is allowed, we shouldn’t be allowing it, but I don’t think should just discount how big a deal it is that Susan Rice was looking at these,” he told reporters Monday. “And she needs to be asked, ‘Did President Obama ask her to do this? Was this a directive from President Obama?  I think she should testify under oath on this.”

 

Paul said he has long thought there are too many people with the ability to unmask individuals.

 

“The law says you can’t reverse target people, but how would you know that once you get inside the brain and the people that are unmasking people,” Paul continued. “So, what if I decided to unmask and I’m there and I only unmask the conversations of my Democrat opponents — shouldn’t there be more restrictions for unmasking people in the political process?”

 

He said he believes there should be …

++++++++++

VIDEO: Susan Rice Requested Intel to Unmask Names of Trump Transition Officials

 

Posted by Lionel Nation

Published on Apr 3, 2017

 

BloombergView’s Eli Lake reports that White House lawyers last month learned that the former national security adviser Susan Rice requested the identities of U.S. persons in raw intelligence reports on dozens of occasions that connect to the Donald Trump transition and campaign, according to U.S. officials familiar with the matter.

The pattern of Rice’s requests was discovered in a National Security Council review of the government’s policy on “unmasking” the identities of individuals in the U.S. who are not targets of electronic eavesdropping, but whose communications are collected incidentally. Normally those names are redacted from summaries of monitored conversations and appear in reports as something like “U.S. Person One.” Not this time. It was Suzie, kids.

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-04-03/top-obama-adviser-sought-names-of-trump-associates-in-intel

The Official Lionel READ THE REST

 

+++

FORMER US ATTORNEY JOSEPH DIGENOVA: SUSAN RICE ORDERED SPY AGENCIES TO PRODUCE ‘DETAILED SPREADSHEETS’ INVOLVING TRUMP

 

By ALICIA

APRIL 4, 2017

Patriot Tribune

 

I CAN’T SAY I’M REALLY SURPRISED CONSIDERING THIS IS THE SAME LYING FRAUD WHO GOT HER JOB AS NSA ADVISER AS A POLITICAL FAVOR FROM OBAMA/CLINTON FOR BEING THE FRONT-PERSON IN THE BENGHAZI VIDEO LYING SCHEME.

 

And she did this all on her own, huh? Do you believe that?

 

Daily Caller:

 

Former President Barack Obama’s national security adviser Susan Rice ordered U.S. spy agencies to produce “detailed spreadsheets” of legal phone calls involving Donald Trump and his aides when he was running for president, according to former U.S. Attorney Joseph diGenova.

 

“What was produced by the intelligence community at the request of Ms. Rice were detailed spreadsheets of intercepted phone calls with unmasked Trump associates in perfectly legal conversations with individuals,” diGenova told The Daily Caller News Foundation Investigative Group Monday.

 

“The overheard conversations involved no illegal activity by anybody of the Trump associates, or anyone they were speaking with,” diGenova said. “In short, the only apparent illegal activity was the unmasking of the people in the calls.”

 

Other official sources with direct knowledge and who requested anonymity confirmed to TheDCNF diGenova’s description of surveillance reports Rice ordered one year before the 2016 presidential election. More

 

VIDEO: Hannity: Susan Rice has a lot of explaining to do

 

Posted by Fox News

Published on Apr 3, 2017

 

Multiple reports reveal the former Obama adviser requested the names of Trump transition team members be unmasked.

 

+++

Former US Attorney: Susan Rice Ordered Spy Agencies To Produce ‘Detailed Spreadsheets’ Involving Trump

 

By Richard Pollock

04/03/2017 10:08 PM 

Daily Caller

 

Update: In response to a question Tuesday from NBC News reporter Andrea Mitchell, former Obama White House National Security Adviser Susan Rice denied that she “prepared” spreadsheets of surveilled telephone calls involving Donald Trump and his aides. The Daily Caller News Foundation Investigative Group, however, reported that Rice “ordered” the spreadsheets to be produced.

 

In addition, former U.S. Attorney Joe DiGenova, one of TheDCNF’s sources, said Tuesday in response to Rice that her denial “would come as quite a surprise to the government officials who have reviewed dozens of those spreadsheets.” 

 

 

+++

No Proof of Trump-Russia Collusion but Lots of Evidence of Obama Spying

 

By Onan Coca

April 4, 2017

Constitution.com

 

Fox News’ Tucker Carlson ripped the national media to shreds while condemning the Obama era White House for wrongfully spying on American citizens for political purposes.

 

Carlson argued that while media continues to focus in on some phantom collusion between President Trump and the Russian government, something for which they have NO PROOF, they are actively ignoring the real scandal unfolding before their eyes. Susan Rice, one of President Obama’s closest advisors, has been caught wrongfully unmasking members of the Trump campaign and transition teams for what seem to be nakedly political purposes. How do we know she did it for political purposes? Many of the reports now being produced show that the data that Rice was collecting had nothing to do with Russia or other national security issues, meaning that she unmasked the names of members of the Trump team without cause.

 

This fact is what Carlson finds most disturbing because it means that civil libertarians were right all along – there really is NOTHING we can do to stop the government from spying on us.

 

 

VIDEO: Tucker: Susan Rice revelation more disturbing than Russia

 

Posted by Fox News

Published on Apr 3, 2017

 

Carlson then transitioned into a conversation with former Obama advisor David Tafuri, a conversation that grew quite heated when Tafuri argued that the Russia story was the real issue here. Carlson pressed, as he has done time and again with liberals and journalists, for Tafuri to present ANY EVIDENCE that there was collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign. Or, for that matter, for Tafuri to present any evidence that Russia had any impact on the recent election. Of course, Tafuri could provide none, nor has any liberal politician or liberal member of the media been able to show a tangible connection between Russia and recent events.

 

 

VIDEO: Rice unmasked as Team Trump unmasker: What it really means

 

Posted by Fox News

Published on Apr 3, 2017

 

+++

FAKE-NEWS GIANTS CLAIM SUSAN RICE SPY SCANDAL IS ‘FAKE’

Chorus of legacy media: Nothing to see here

 

By ALICIA POWE

April 4, 2017

WND

 

WASHINGTON – Is it a real story, or is it fake news?

 

That’s the raging debate about the exploding scandal over Susan Rice’s “unmasking” of incoming Trump administration officials when she served as President Barack Obama’s national security adviser.

 

Despite some likening the White House use of classified leaks for political purposes to a scandal bigger than Watergate, media outlets Tuesday were shooting down – or flat-out ignoring – the blockbuster report that verified the Obama administration surveilled the Trump team.

 

 

+++

Susan Rice Responds To Trump Unmasking Allegations: “I Leaked Nothing To Nobody”

 

By Tyler Durden

Apr 4, 2017 9:47 PM

ZeroHedge

 

If anyone expected former National Security Advisor Susan Rice, the same Susan Rice who “stretched the truth” about Benghazi, to admit in her first public appearance after news that she unmasked members of the Trump team to admit she did something wrong, will be disappointed. Instead, moments ago she told MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell that she categorically denied that the Obama administration inappropriately spied on members of the Trump transition team.

 

[Several MSNBC Tweets of Mitchell/Rice interview]

 

We doubt that anyone’s opinion will change after hearing the above especially considering that, in addition to Benghazi, Rice is the official who praised Bowe Bergdahl for his “honorable service” and claimed he was captured “on the battlefield”, and then just two weeks ago, she told PBS that she didn’t know anything about the unmasking.

 

Unfortunately, Mitchell’s list of questions did not go so far as to ask about her false claim in the PBS interview, in which she said “I know nothing about unmasking Trump officials.”

 

It is thus hardly surprising that now that her memory has been “refreshed” about her role in the unmasking, that Rice clearly remembers doing nothing at all wrong.

 

On Monday night, Rand Paul and other Republicans called for Rice to testify under oath, a request she sidestepped on Tuesday. “Let’s see what comes,” she told Mitchell, when asked if she would testify on …

______________

Do YOU Trust Benghazi/Bergdahl Liar?

John R. Houk

© April 5, 2017

___________

Why Susan Rice’s Role In The Obama Spying Story Is A Big Deal

 

Copyright © 2017 The Federalist, a wholly independent division of FDRLST Media, All Rights Reserved

____________

Susan Rice requested to unmask names of Trump transition officials, sources say

 

This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. ©2017 FOX News Network, LLC. All rights reserved.

 

[Blog Editor: FYI, I did not get Fox News permission to cross post. If requested, this cross post will be removed.]

Fake News Accusations is About Silencing My Voice & Your Voice


internet-censorship

John R. Houk

© December 10, 2016

 

The American Left as represented by the Left Stream Media and Democrats particularly the sore loser Crooked Hillary, have been doing their best to frame President-Elect Trump’s victory with a crushing 306 awarded Electoral Votes is the result of “Fake News”.

 

In my book the Left is doing its best to delegitimize Donald Trump as President of the United States. And since the Left is trying to persuade their clueless voters to be angry against Trump’s voters, you must ask – WHY?

 

I haven’t heard or read anyone come to the conclusion I have arrived at, but hear is my simple Conservative voter reasoning. The Dems are setting the groundwork to censor Conservative Social Media and Conservative bloggers who do not tow the Leftist public agenda that is pushed by the Left Stream Media as “Real News”.

 

I have a couple of articles for you to read that I am certain the American Left will step up to the stump and holler Fake News with the sole purpose of influencing people to not consider an alternative view that Hillary Clinton is CROOKED.

crooked-hillary-cries-about-fake-news

JRH 12/10/16

Please Support NCCR

****************

The Queen of the Benghazi Video Lie Calls for Censoring of “Fake News” because “Lives are at Risk”

 

By TIM BROWN

DECEMBER 9, 2016

Freedom Outpost

 

A pathetic looking Hillary Clinton came out of hiding after the “most devastating loss in the history of American politics” to chime in on the brouhaha surrounding alleged “fake news,” saying that “lives are at risk.”

 

I have no idea who would want to actually attend a meeting where this woman is speaking. However, she spoke on Capitol Hill and urged Congress to pass legislation that would “boost the government’s response to foreign propaganda.”

 

She also showed her support for censoring whatever the government wants to label “fake news” on social media, which has already been touted as “sophisticated Russian propaganda tools.”

 

VIDEO: Hillary Clinton on Fake News Dangers

 

Posted by ABC News

Published on Dec 8, 2016

 

Hillary Clinton on Fake News Dangers | Hillary Clinton says fake news can have “real world consequences”: “This isn’t about politics or partnership. Lives are at risk.”

 

“It’s a danger that must be addressed and addressed quickly,” Clinton said.

 

“Let me just mention briefly one threat in particular that should concern all Americans — Democrats, Republicans, and Independents alike — especially those who serve in our Congress: the epidemic of malicious fake news and false propaganda that flooded social media over the past year,” Clinton said.

 

“It’s now clear that so-called fake news can have real-world consequences,” she said. “This isn’t about politics or partisanship. Lives are at risk. Lives of ordinary people just trying to go about their days to do their jobs, contribute to their communities.”

 

“It’s a danger that must be addressed and addressed quickly. Bipartisan legislation is making its way through Congress to boost the government’s response to foreign propaganda, and Silicon Valley is starting to grapple with the challenge and threat of fake news,” Clinton added. “It’s imperative that leaders in both the private sector and the public sector step up to protect our democracy, and innocent lives.”

 

The irony of what Clinton is saying is utterly unbelievable! First, we are not a democracy. We’re a Republic.

 

Wasn’t it this witch that went out in front of the American people, conspired with Obama lackeys and sent out a spokesperson to blatantly lie to the American people about a fabricated story as the catalyst for the September 11, 2012 Benghazi attack that resulted in four real American lives being lost? Why, yes, yes it was.

 

VIDEO: Obama and Hillary Blame Youtube Video for Benghazi Terrorist Attack as Coffins Arrive

 

Posted by Hayes Thomas

Published on May 9, 2013

 

Obama said he would stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in a ugly direction and he was not kidding. The bodies of Americans coming home in coffins after a terrorist attack on the anniversary of 9/11 and his administration takes the opportunity to go after Coptic Christians and critics of Islam in a anti free speech political stance.

 

Susan Rice, Barack Hussein Obama Soetoro Sobarkah and Clinton all stood behind the lie about the video, even though Gregory Hicks, a Benghazi eyewitness, said the video was a “nonevent,” that the CIA knew from the start that Benghazi was a jihadist attack and had nothing to do with a video, and that more than likely Obama speech writer Ben Rhodes had something to do with changing the talking points that were provided to the administration. Even Clinton’s own State Department were involved in altering the talking points and emails prove this. State Department emails also confirm that Clinton and the White House knew within two hours that Benghazi was not a protest gone bad, but was a full blown jihad attack. Emails even show that the Tripoli embassy urged the criminals in DC to “not conflate” the video with the Benghazi attack.

 

Not only did she do that, but she then said she never lied about it, even though she spent $75,000 of tax payer dollars to apologize the people of Pakistan for the video. Let’s not even get into the lies concerning her illegal email server, which has resulted in at least one death.

 

Perhaps we should start censoring her every time she opens her mouth with real fake news, since she is obviously not telling the truth. Remember the time she lied about escaping sniper fire in Bosnia?

 

We could go on and on with the crimes of Mrs. Clinton, her husband Bill, her daughter Chelsea and the Clinton Foundation, all of which there is evidence to bear out that their crimes are real, but are being covered up by their conspirators in the state-controlled media. However, they also have accomplices in Congress, too.

 

Representative Devin Nunes (R-CA) and Representative Adam Schiff (D-CA) have put forth  H.R 6393: Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, which is in response to the real fake news mainstream media‘s claims that alternative media putting forth “fake news” are nothing more than agents of “Russian propaganda.”

 

It’s time the American people had enough of America’s own propaganda and demand their representatives and unelected people like Hillary Clinton stop attempting to infringe on the rights that are protected under the First Amendment concerning free speech, and freedom of the press.

 

+++

Hillary Clinton: ‘It is Now Clear That So-called Fake News can Have Real-world Consequences’ [VIDEO]

 

By Philip Hodges

December 9, 2016

Eagle Rising

 

Democratic Senator Harry Reid of Nevada is throwing in the towel. He’s retiring at the end of this year.

 

Hillary Clinton was invited to speak at an event honoring the outgoing Senator, in which she praised Reid. Placed awkwardly in her speech without any segue was a brief segment about “malicious fake news” which can have “real-world consequences” – no doubt referencing the actor who barged in to a D.C. pizza joint to “investigate” a child prostitution ring thought to involve the Clintons, the Podestas, and many others.

 

Apparently, according to one of Hillary Clinton’s aides, the former Democratic nominee did stop by Comet Ping Pong – the pizza place in question – to meet with the owner.

 

In her speech celebrating Senator Reid’s career and life, she mentioned the story about Ben Franklin being asked following the Constitutional Convention what kind of government they had formed, to which Franklin replied, “A Republic. If you can keep it.” Then, she said something about “standing up for our democracy,” and went straight into “fake news.” From RCP:

 

Let me mention briefly one threat in particular that should concern all Americans. Democrats, Republicans and Independents alike, especially those who serve in our Congress:  The epidemic of malicious fake news and false propaganda that flooded social media over the past year. It is now clear that so-called fake news can have real-world consequences.

 

This isn’t about politics or partisanship. Lives are at risk. Lives of ordinary people just trying to go about their days, to do their jobs, contribute to their communities. It’s a danger that must be addressed and addressed quickly.

 

Bipartisan legislation is making its way through Congress to boost the government’s response to foreign propaganda, and Silicon Valley is starting to grapple with the challenge and threat of fake news. 

 

It’s imperative that leaders in both the private sector and the public sector step up to protect our democracy and innocent lives. Harry Reid and Vice President Biden may be stepping back from the daily scrum of politics and governing, but I know I speak for them as well as tens of millions of Americans when I say that we are all counting on those of you who remain.

 

Her comments start around halfway in:

 

VIDEO: WOW: In RARE Post-Election Appearance, HILLARY CLINTON Pays Tribute to Harry Reid

 

Posted by FOX 10 Phoenix

Published on Dec 8, 2016

 

Brought to you by Desert Diamond: http://ddcaz.com
Vice President Biden joins Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi & Senator Chuck Schumer for the unveiling of Reid’s leader portrait from the Kennedy Caucus Room at the U.S. Capitol.

 

The media were so quick to draw conclusions about the ‘fake news’ story “pizzagate” and the actor who fired a shot at the pizza place. If the same guy had gone in and yelled, “Allahu Akbar!” and killed a few people, the media would make sure no one jumped to any conclusions. “Just because he said ‘Allahu Akbar’ doesn’t mean that he must be a Muslim. It doesn’t mean it’s terrorism. Maybe it was just a disgruntled ex-employee, you Islamophobes!”

 

But since a guy waltzed in claiming to be investigating an underground child prostitution ring, the media and political establishment are falling over themselves, trying to shut down every conservative and libertarian site for spreading “malicious fake news” – created by a “sophisticated Russian propaganda campaign” conspiracy – that’s had “real-world consequences.”

 

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by EagleRising.com

_______________

Fake News Accusations is About Silencing My Voice & Your Voice

John R. Houk

© December 10, 2016

_____________

The Queen of the Benghazi Video Lie Calls for Censoring of “Fake News” because “Lives are at Risk”

 

About Tim Brown

 

Tim Brown is an author and Editor at FreedomOutpost.com, SonsOfLibertyMedia.comGunsInTheNews.com and TheWashingtonStandard.com. He is husband to his “more precious than rubies” wife, father of 10 “mighty arrows”, jack of all trades, Christian and lover of liberty. He resides in the U.S. occupied Great State of South Carolina. Tim is also an affiliate for the Joshua Mark 5 AR/AK hybrid semi-automatic rifle. Follow Tim on Twitter.

 

Copyright © 2016 FreedomOutpost.com

______________

Hillary Clinton: ‘It is Now Clear That So-called Fake News can Have Real-world Consequences’ [VIDEO]

 

About Philip Hodges

 

Phil has been writing about outrageous news and politics since 2012. He is the Editor at EagleRising.com and has written for Constitution.com, Last Resistance, Political Outcast, and Godfather Politics.

 

Copyright © 2016. EagleRising.com. All rights reserved

 

 

Russia Hacked Emails like a Movie Caused Benghazi


lying-crooked-hillary

John R. Houk

© October 22, 2016

 

Is it illegal to hack an individual’s email account? YES! Is it illegal to hack government email accounts? YES! Is it illegal for government employees to conduct government business on a private email or private server? YES! Is Wikileaks reprehensible if their organization is involved in any illegal hacking whatsoever – which would be illegal? YES!

 

Did Russia hack the Democratic Party emails? THERE IS NO PROOF, other than the words of the Obama Administration and the Democratic Party!

 

These are the same people who told America in 2012 that the Benghazi Islamic terrorist attack that killed FOUR Americans was the result of an obscure Youtube Movie trailer. That was a lie fabricated to make sure Barack Hussein Obama was reelected. It was a cover-up in part to make Obama/Crooked Hillary Foreign Policy and Clandestine decisions to make them appear competent rather than inept.

 

Crooked Hillary claimed in the third Presidential Debate that SIXTEEN American Intelligence organizations pointed their fingers at Russia and Putin as the definite hackers of the Dem National Committee emails. I have to ask, “Which vague 16 Intelligence organizations claim that Russia is responsible for the hacking?”

 

I gotta tell you. Crooked Hillary’s condescending and vague accusation against Russia to make Donald Trump look nefarious brought me back to the Benghazi Lies of 2012. At this point the difference Crooked Hillary’s accusation is probably a Benghazi-like lie. A LIE TO GET ELECTED President of the United States!

 

These Leftist Dems will say anything to get elected to any Office.

 

It has come my attention a former British Ambassador – Craig Murray – that lost his British diplomatic job with the UK government for “exposing the UK government’s knowing use of intelligence obtained from suspects who had been tortured by the Uzbekistan Government,” is vouching for Wikileaks that the hacked emails did NOT COME from Russia. AGAIN! The Dems are lying to win the election. The Dem lie has the complete cooperation of America’s Left Stream Media who are not focusing on the Wikileaks exposing just how nefarious Crooked Hillary and the Dems truly are.

 

My fellow American voters, DO YOU WANT CROOKED HILLARY TO BE POTUS KNOWING SHE AND HER DEMS ARE THIS CORRUPT? REALLY?

 

Everything Crooked Hillary says she will do to benefit Americans at worst is a nefarious evil lie with another agenda she desires to be hidden. At best whatever Crooked Hillary speaks to Americans is well-meaning deception to bring America into a disastrous transformed Leftist utopia that tears up EVERYTHING the Founding Fathers put on paper that would lead America to become great.

 

MY GOD DEAR VOTERS – VOTE TRUMP TO GIVE AMERICA A CHANCE!

 

Below is the Constitution.com article about Craig Murray denying the Dem-line that Russia is behind the hacking thorn in Crooked Hillary’s side.

 

JRH 10/22/16

Please Support NCCR

******************

Breaking! British Politician says Russia has NOTHING to do with the DNC Email Leaks!

 

By Onan Coca

October 21, 2016

Constitution.com

 

Former British Ambassador Craig Murray is an ally and friend of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange and he visited Assange in the Ecuadorian Embassy on Wednesday to discuss his ongoing plight. What Murray learned could have a huge impact on the 2016 election, if the American people are allowed to hear it.

 

One of the main media arguments for people not to give credence to the hacked DNC, Clinton emails is that this is a deliberate attempt by Vladimir Putin and Russia to impact our electoral process. The narrative goes something like this; ‘Russia illegally hacked the DNC and are now trying to steal the election from Clinton. So Republicans shouldn’t use the ill-gotten information, the media shouldn’t report on it, and the American people shouldn’t pay attention to it. In that way, we’ll be standing up to the tinpot dictator Putin.’ The only problem with this is that it means we should all completely ignore the criminality and corruption at the DNC and in the Clinton campaign team! It’s a stupid argument, but it’s become so prevalent that even some conservatives are parroting it.

 

WATCHING WIKILEAKS

 

VIDEO: Breaking British Politician says Russia has NOTHING to do with the DNC Email Leaks – The Constitution [ORIGINALLY LIFEZETTE]

 

Here’s the thing… there’s no proof that Russia did any of this. They’ve never admitted to it, and our intelligence community has never proven it. It’s simply a theory that the media and the Clinton team have implied is fact.

 

Well, Ambassador Murray is here to dispel the rumors and to clear the air. Vladimir Putin and Russia had nothing to do with hacks on the Democrats, nor with the release of the hacked emails.

 

Here’s what Ambassador Murray had to say from his personal website:

 

I left Julian after midnight. He is fit, well, sharp and in good spirits. WikiLeaks never reveals or comments upon its sources, but as I published before a fortnight ago, I can tell you with 100% certainty that it is not any Russian state actor or proxy that gave the Democratic National Committee and Podesta material to WikiLeaks. The claim is nonsense. Journalists are also publishing that these were obtained by “hacking” with no evidence that this was the method used to obtain them.

 

The control of the Democratic party machinery deliberately to unfairly ensure Clinton’s victory over Bernie Sanders is a matter of great public interest. The attempt by the establishment from Obama down to divert attention from this by a completely spurious claim against Russia, repeated without investigation by a servile media, is a disgrace.

 

The over-close relationship between the probable future President and Wall Street is also very important. WikiLeaks has done a great public service by making this plain.

 

The attempts by the mainstream media to portray WikiLeaks as supporters of Trump and Putin because they publish some of Clinton’s darker secrets is completely illogical and untrue in fact. The idea we must pretend Clinton is a saint is emetic.

 

But the key point is that WikiLeaks is a publisher. It is a vehicle for publishing leaks, and is much more of a vehicle for whistleblowers than for hackers. It does not originate the material. I have often seen comments such as “Why has WikiLeaks not published material on Israel/Putin/Trump?” The answer is that they have not been given any. They publish good, verifiable material that they are given by whistleblowers. They are not protecting Israel, Putin, or Trump. Nobody has given them viable material.

 

Did you get that?

 

  • Russia did not get/give WikiLeaks any of the leaked emails/data.

 

  • The media says the info was “hacked,” but WikiLeaks has never said that the information was gathered in that manner. Meaning, it could have been leaked by a whistleblower.

 

  • The same people who “stole” the Democrat nomination from Bernie Sanders are now trying to shift attention from their corruption to Russia.

 

  • Obama and the media are complicit in both the corruption and the cover up of the corruption.

 

  • WikiLeaks doesn’t have a “dog in the fight;” they simply publish the information that is given to them by whistleblowers.

 

Ladies and gentlemen, please don’t buy the media/establishment spin on the WikiLeaks releases. This isn’t about Russia, or hacking, or anything like that –

 

This is all about how the Democrat Party is corrupt, anti-democratic, and very likely criminal.

 

This is all about how the media has been complicit, not only in the crimes of the Democrat Party, but in covering up their crimes as well.

 

This is all about how liberals will literally do whatever it takes to win. In their minds the ends always justify whatever dastardly means must be employed to ensure victory.

 

This is all about how the American people continue to have their rights stripped away from them by a bloated and corrupt government.

 

Don’t let them get away with it.

 

_________________

Russia Hacked Emails like a Movie Caused Benghazi

John R. Houk

© October 22, 2016

_________________

Breaking! British Politician says Russia has NOTHING to do with the DNC Email Leaks!

 

Onan Coca

 

Onan is the Editor-in-Chief at Liberty Alliance media group. He’s also the managing editor at Eaglerising.com, Constitution.com and the managing partner at iPatriot.com. Onan is a graduate of Liberty University (2003) and earned his M.Ed. at Western Governors University in 2012. Onan lives in Atlanta with his wife and their three wonderful children. You can find his writing all over the web.

 

Copyright © 2016 The Constitution. All Rights Reserved. 

 

Americans Don’t Leave Americans to Die


Benghazi Cover-up

The anniversary of two Islamic terrorist attacks is coming up on September 11. The first in 2001 on the World Trade Center and the second in 2012 at Benghazi. Justin Smith is writing about the egregious cover-up about Benghazi.

 

Why didn’t the Obama Administration make no effort at a rescue during the thirteen-hour fire fight with Muslim terrorists? Was Obama Administration afraid that secret arms dealing was going on between Muslim terrorists in Libya and Muslim terrorists in Syria? Was there an even more sinister clandestine operation going on that Obama didn’t want the public to know about during an election year? What was then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s role in all the lies surrounding Benghazi?

 

These are questions that all branches of the Obama Administration have NOT been forthcoming in giving out data and eye-witness accounts. It is this kind of cover-up that brought down the Nixon Administration. The Dems have become so sleazy that they will protect their power prospects at any cost to truth and integrity.

 

Here are some story lines that are supportive of Justin Smith’s assertions below:

 

Benghazigate Articles Demonstrating Obama Foreign Policy Incompetence Pt 2SlantRight 2-0; 11/2/12

 

Shocking new report: Obama administration denied 3 calls for help in BenghaziGlenBeck.com; 10/26/12 3:29 PM EDT

 

BOMBSHELL: New email shows Pentagon tried to send help in Benghazi, BUT AllenBWest.com; 12/8/15 7:55pm

 

Hillary’s Benghazi Stand-Down Order Exposed; FrontPageMag.com; 1/13/16

 

It’s Time America Got Some Answers About Huma Abedin; Stone Cold Truth; 6/18/16

 

State Dept. finally turns over Huma Abedin/Susan Rice Benghazi files; Conservative Base; 4/10/16

 

JRH 9/4/16

Please Support NCCR

********************

Americans Don’t Leave Americans to Die

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent 9/3/2016 1:45 PM

 

Never has America witnessed a more shameful event than on September 11th, 2012, when the Obama administration refused to go immediately to the assistance of the U.S. Consulate and the CIA Annex in Benghazi, Libya, as besieged Americans fought a full pitch battle against a well-planned terrorist attack by Ansar al-Sharia and the Brigades of the Captive Omar Abdul Rahman. Beyond a shadow of doubt, several U.S. military resources were available, despite all administration claims to the contrary, and could have arrived in time to have prevented the deaths of Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, if not Sean Smith and Ambassador Chris Stevens. However, according to numerous well respected sources of unquestionable integrity, various military units received a “stand down” order.

 

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had direct authority over the Libyan facilities. So what happened?

 

Twice after the initial “critic”/Critical Incident Flash, the White House received requests for military assistance during the attack. Twice they denied those requests, before Obama finally ordered Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and Hillary Clinton to “do everything possible” to save the remaining Americans at the CIA Annex. And then Obama nonchalantly went to bed, as he was more focused on his next day presidential campaign event.

 

Information released by the Congressional Select Committee on Benghazi shows that at 11:45 PM Washington time (5:54 Benghazi time), more than five hours after Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta issued his order to deploy (military) elements, White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough sent an email to the high level representatives of the Executive Branch. McDonough’s primary concern seemed to be the removal of Pastor Jones’ video, of the Prophet Mohammed burning in effigy, rather than ensuring U.S. military forces were moving to rescue the American survivors, who were still fighting for their lives at this time.

 

Just days after the attacks, (Retired Army) Lt. Col. Tony Schaffer told FoxNews that the U.S. planned the invasion of Grenada in 1983 in six hours. He added, “We could have had a strike team on the ground in Benghazi in thirty minutes or less to protect, assist and extract our personnel under attack.”

 

Gregory Hicks, Ambassador Stevens’ State Department deputy, told the Congressional Select Committee on Benghazi that SOCAFRICA commander Lt. Col. Gibson and his team were preparing to board a C-130 from Tripoli to Benghazi, when Gibson received a phone call. He was told not to board the flight. Hicks also testified that the State Department never requested country clearance from Libya for any U.S. forces that night.

 

One CIA contractor, Kris “Tanto” Paranto, who was in the thick of the battle all during that night (’13 Hours’), has since revealed that two AC 130-H “Spectre” gunships were “on call” on 9/11/2012. One was a 45-minute flight away at Naval Air Station Sigonella in Sicily, and its 25mm rapid-fire Gatling guns, 40mm precision Bofors gun and 105mm canon would have made short work of the terrorists, scattering them to the wind.

 

Paranto also knew members of the European Command Commander’s In-Extremis Force (EUCOM/ C-110), which was about 3 hours away on a counter-terrorism training mission in Croatia, and he called them after he and his security team fought their way back to the Annex with the surviving U.S. personnel. The EUCOM loaded up and prepared to leave, when they were stopped around midnight.

 

Pentagon Chief of Staff Jeremy Bash offered the U.S. military’s assistance to the State Department soon after receiving Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta’s clear and unambiguous orders to go rescue our people. At 7:09 PM Washington time (1:09 AM Benghazi time) Bash informed Hillary Clinton’s office of numerous military assets that were “spinning up as we speak” to deploy to Benghazi. And yet, by the time of the final lethal battle at the CIA Annex, after nearly 8 hours of battle, no assets ordered deployed by Secretary Panetta had even left the ground.

 

Two U.S. Marine Corps Fleet Anti-Terrorism Security Team (FAST) platoons stood by at the ready for three hours, changing their uniforms four times due to “diplomatic sensitivities” expressed by Clinton and her staff. Armed predator drones stayed inactive. Marine Expeditionary Units in the Mediterranean stayed aboard ship, and the 173rd Airborne Infantry at Aviano Airbase in Italy never made the two-hour flight by C-130.

 

The only military “asset” to reach Benghazi during the attacks was Team Tripoli, military personnel based at the Tripoli Annex, whose presence was unknown to Clinton, Panetta and the Joint Staff. They deployed themselves that night, improvising, persevering and overcoming the odds, because fellow Americans needed them, and they saved American lives.

 

Why didn’t Hillary Clinton request the deployment of U.S. military resources? One AFRICOM commander said, “The State Department was concerned that an overt U.S. military presence in Libya could topple the government.”

 

More importantly, who was the leak at the State Dept. that gave the terrorists ten-days prior notice of Ambassador Stevens’ arrival in Libya? — a trip that was supposed to be a secret. What role did Clinton advisor Huma Abedin play in this? — Abedin, who has long advocated for Sharia law and has deep ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, a terrorist organization, and the radical Imam Yusuf al-Qaradawi through her parents, Syed and Saleha Abedin.

 

Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty both died in the final hours of the attacks. Charles Woods spoke to the Citizens’ Committee on Benghazi this June (WND), stating: “My son and the rest would still be alive if there were any attempt made at a rescue … I want to know who was responsible for my son’s death.”

 

Mr. Woods and the family members of Chris Stevens, Sean Smith and Glen Doherty may soon have more definitive answers. The FBI has just recently recovered 30 Benghazi related emails that Hillary Clinton deleted.

 

Representative Mike Pompeo (R-KS) stated: “We expect our government to make every effort to save the lives of Americans who serve in harm’s way. That did not happen in Benghazi. Politics were put ahead of the lives of Americans.

 

Americans don’t leave Americans to die, but this administration and Hillary Clinton did. Obama and Clinton both were derelict in their duties, but Clinton’s black heart and overt malfeasance, with her focus on her Libyan agenda and her personal schemes, left four Americans dead and ten wounded. Thirty-five were waiting in fear, desperate for help. But help never came from Washington, D.C., because Clinton gave the stand down order, which halted the Tactical Operations Center Team Leader’s standard operating procedures at Tripoli’s U.S. Embassy and the deployment of U.S. military assets for a rescue mission. The Pentagon could not act without a specific request for assistance from Clinton’s State Department. All America saw these “Progressives” and their government fail to rescue our people, when most of us would have moved Heaven and Earth to do so.

 

By Justin O. Smith

__________________

Edited by John R. Houk

 

© Justin O. Smith

Benghazi Conspiracy Now Closer to Criminal Behavior


John R. Houk
© May 19, 2015
 
[Blog Editor: In case you missed the import of this info the Most Watched Videos poster repeats same interview twice]
 
 
Largely thanks to Judicial Watch (JW), the Barack Hussein Obama Administration is being exposed to a nefarious cover-up which includes the current Dem Party front runner Hillary Clinton. America’s Liar-in-Chief has been smoking gun proven he was aware that a Benghazi attack was imminent on September 11, 2012. And it is now proven by documentation the Obama Administration was secretly transferring deposed Qaddafi weapons from Libya to Syrian rebels fighting Bashar Assad. The unproven matter is whether those weapons ended up with American backed Syrian rebels or Islamic purist rebels related to al Qaeda and some of which evolved into ISIS.
 
This is a cover-up because BHO acted surprised about the Benghazi attacked and then proceeded to blame an obscure movie trailer showing Mo in a negative light. After the fake blame game the Obama Administration had the film maker (now-a-days known as Mark Basseley Youssef) arrested in 2012 for breaking probation from a previous prison release. Apparently Mr. Youssef (an Egyptian Coptic Christian by profession of faith) has a history of tax evasion and con artist fraud schemes. Perhaps Obama new a fellow fraudster to blame to take eyes off his 2012 campaign for President.
 
It is my personal opinion that Obama and his minions went to such an effort to cover-up the truth about Benghazi to make sure the American voters elected him to a second term as President. Although I suspect the same bumbling GOP campaign staffers that failed to emphasize Obama’s deficiencies in both campaigns that elected Obama to POTUS in 2008 would also have failed to push the fact that Obama and Hillary lied and people died. I mean the Dems had no problem in debasing Bush’s reputation with warped facts by saying Bush lied and people died. Dear God in Heaven I pray the next round of GOP campaigners are bright enough to expose the Obama lies against whoever ultimately wins the Dem nomination in 2016.
 
In order to properly disseminate the news on the Obama/Hillary lies below you will find several cross posts reporting the implications of the JW FOIA documents recently released for public consumption.
 
JRH 5/19/15 (Video Hat Tip: Sharia Unveiled)

Please Support NCCR

*****************************
New docs reveal administration knew about Benghazi 10 days before attack
Judicial Watch’s latest FOIA efforts pack a big punch
 
Posted By Kemberlee Kaye
May 18, 2015 at 7:30pm
hillary-gif-benghazi-FOI-dept-state-scandal-judicial-watch 
I’m struggling to concoct a scenario more damning than this.
 
After filing a FOIA suit, thanks to a court order Judicial Watch obtained documents from the Department of Defense and Department of State which indicate the Obama administration knew al Qaeda was planning the attack in Benghazi ten days before it happened. TEN DAYS.
 
Immediately following the 9/11 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi in 2012, the DOD had identified the culprits and indicated the attack had been planned “ten days or more” prior.
 
A Defense Department document from the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), dated September 12, 2012, the day after the Benghazi attack, details that the attack on the compound had been carefully planned by the BOCAR terrorist group “to kill as many Americans as possible.” The document was sent to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Obama White House National Security Council. The heavily redacted Defense Department “information report” says that the attack on the Benghazi facility “was planned and executed by The Brigades of the Captive Omar Abdul Rahman (BCOAR).” The group subscribes to “AQ ideologies:”
 
The attack was planned ten or more days prior on approximately 01 September 2012. The intention was to attack the consulate and to kill as many Americans as possible to seek revenge for U.S. killing of Aboyahiye ((ALALIBY)) in Pakistan and in memorial of the 11 September 2001 atacks (sic) on the World Trade Center buildings.
 
“A violent radical,” the DIA report says, is “the leader of BCOAR is Abdul Baset ((AZUZ)), AZUZ was sent by ((ZAWARI)) to set up Al Qaeda (AQ) bases in Libya.” The group’s headquarters was set up with the approval of a “member of the Muslim brother hood movement…where they have large caches of weapons. Some of these caches are disguised by feeding troughs for livestock. They have SA-7 and SA-23/4 MANPADS…they train almost every day focusing on religious lessons and scriptures including three lessons a day of jihadist ideology.”
 
The Defense Department reported the group maintained written documents, in “a small rectangular room, approximately 12 meters by 6 meters…that contain information on all of the AQ activity in Libya.”
 
(Azuz is again blamed for the Benghazi attack in an October 2012 DIA document.)
 
But that’s not the end. Evidently, the administration was also aware of arms shipments from Benghazi to rebel troops in Syria.
 
The new documents also provide the first official confirmation that shows the U.S. government was aware of arms shipments from Benghazi to Syria. The documents also include an August 2012 analysis warning of the rise of ISIS and the predicted failure of the Obama policy of regime change in Syria.
 
Intelligence should be tracking who is shipping arms to whom, but according to Judicial Watch, this is the first documentation that shows the administration had constructive knowledge of the arms shipments.
 
Weapons from the former Libya military stockpiles were shipped from the port of Benghazi, Libya to the Port of Banias and the Port of Borj Islam, Syria. The weapons shipped during late-August 2012 were Sniper rifles, RPG’s, and 125 mm and 155mm howitzers missiles.
 
During the immediate aftermath of, and following the uncertainty caused by, the downfall of the ((Qaddafi)) regime in October 2011 and up until early September of 2012, weapons from the former Libya military stockpiles located in Benghazi, Libya were shipped from the port of Benghazi, Libya to the ports of Banias and the Port of Borj Islam, Syria. The Syrian ports were chosen due to the small amount of cargo traffic transiting these two ports. The ships used to transport the weapons were medium-sized and able to hold 10 or less shipping containers of cargo.
 
Of course the State Department has yet to turn over any documents from Hillary’s secret email accounts, as Judicial Watch notes.
 
The release of this information ahead of Hillary’s Congressional hearing will certainly serve to draw even more scrutiny to the former Secretary of State’s involvement in the Benghazi cover-up. Revelations like these exposed by Judicial Watch’s FOIA suit underscore the necessity of a forensic investigation of Hillary’s private email servers.
 
If ever there was a time to unearth all of those “deleted” emails, that time is now.
 
Follow Kemberlee Kaye on Twitter
_______________________________
Military intel predicted rise of ISIS in 2012, detailed arms shipments from Benghazi to Syria
 
Published May 18, 2015
 
Seventeen months before President Obama dismissed the Islamic State as a “JV team,” a Defense Intelligence Agency report predicted the rise of the terror group and likely establishment of a caliphate if its momentum was not reversed.
 
While the report was circulated to the CIA, State Department and senior military leaders, among others, it’s not known whether Obama was ever briefed on the document.
 
The DIA report, which was reviewed by Fox News, was obtained through a federal lawsuit by conservative watchdog Judicial Watch. Documents from the lawsuit also reveal a host of new details about events leading up to the 2012 Benghazi terror attack — and how the movement of weapons from Libya to Syria fueled the violence there.
 
The report on the growing threat posed by what is now known as the Islamic State was sent on Aug. 5, 2012.
 
The report warned the continued deterioration of security conditions would have “dire consequences on the Iraqi situation,” and huge benefits for ISIS — which grew out of Al Qaeda in Iraq.
 
“This creates the ideal atmosphere for AQI (Al Qaeda in Iraq) to return to its old pockets in Mosul and Ramadi,” the document states, adding “ISI (Islamic State of Iraq) could also declare an Islamic state through its union with other terrorist organizations in Iraq and Syria, which will create grave danger in regards to unifying Iraq and the protection of its territory.”
 
ISIS would, in June 2014, go on to declare a caliphate in territory spanning Iraq and Syria, in turn drawing more foreign fighters to their cause from around the world.
 
CLICK TO READ THE DOCUMENTS GIVEN TO JUDICIAL WATCH FROM THE DEFENSE DEPARTMENT AND STATE DEPARTMENT.
 
Also among the documents is a heavily redacted DIA report that details weapons operations inside Libya before the 2012 terror attack in Benghazi. The Oct. 5, 2012 report leaves no doubt that U.S. intelligence agencies were fully aware that lethal weapons were being shipped from Benghazi to Syrian ports.
 
The report said: “Weapons from the former Libya military stockpiles were shipped from the Port of Benghazi, Libya to the Port of Banias and the Port of Borj Islam, Syria. The weapons shipped during late-August 2012 were Sniper rifles, RPG’s, and 125 mm and 155 mm howitzers missiles.”
 
Current and former intelligence and administration officials have consistently skirted questions about weapons shipments, and what role the movement played in arming extremist groups the U.S. government is now trying to defeat in Syria and Iraq.
 
In an interview with Fox News’ Bret Baier broadcast May 11, former Acting CIA Director Michael Morell, deflected questions:
 
Baier: Were CIA officers tracking the movement of weapons from Libya to Syria?
 
Morell: I can’t talk about that.
 
Baier: You can’t talk about it?
 
Morell: I can’t talk about it.
 
Baier: Even if they weren’t moving the weapons themselves, are you saying categorically that the U.S. government and the CIA played no role whatsoever in the movement of weapons from Libya…
 
Morell: Yes.
 
Baier: — to Syria?
 
Morell: We played no role.  Now whether we were watching other people do it, I can’t talk about it.
 
While the DIA report was not a finished intelligence assessment, such Intelligence Information Reports (IIRs) are vetted before distribution, a former Pentagon official said.
 
The October 2012 report may also be problematic for Hillary Clinton, who likewise skirted the weapons issue during her only congressional testimony on Benghazi in January 2013. In an exchange with Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., who is now a Republican candidate for president, the former secretary of state said, “I will have to take that question for the record. Nobody’s ever raised that with me.”
 
Referring to Fox News’ ongoing reporting that a weapons ship, Al Entisar, had moved weapons from Libya to Turkey with a final destination of Syria in September 2012, Paul responded, “It’s been in news reports that ships have been leaving from Libya and that they may have weapons.” He asked whether the CIA annex which came under attack on Sept. 11, 2012 was involved in those shipments.
 
Clinton answered: “Well, senator, you’ll have to direct that question to the agency that ran the annex. I will see what information is available.”
 
In a follow-up letter, the State Department Office of Legislative Affairs provided a narrow response to the senator’s question, and did not speak to the larger issue of weapons moving from Libya to Syria.
 
“The United States is not involved in any transfer of weapons to Turkey,” the February 2013 letter from Thomas B. Gibbons, acting assistant secretary of state for legislative affairs, said.
 
Heavily redacted congressional testimony, declassified after the House intelligence committee Benghazi investigation concluded, shows conflicting accounts were apparently given to lawmakers.
 
On Nov. 15 2012, Morell and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper testified “Yes” on whether the U.S. intelligence community was aware arms were moving from Libya to Syria. This line of questioning by Republican Rep. Devin Nunes, who is now the intelligence committee chairman, was shut down by his predecessor Mike Rogers, R-Mich., who said not everyone in the classified hearing was “cleared” to hear the testimony, which means they did not have a high enough security clearance.
 
An outside analyst told Fox News that Rogers’ comments suggest intelligence related to the movement of weapons was a “read on,” and limited to a very small number of recipients.
 
Six months later, on May 22, 2013, Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, now chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, asked if the CIA was “monitoring arms that others were sending into Syria.” Morell said, “No, sir.”
 
The Judicial Watch documents also contain a DIA report from Sept. 12, 2012. It indicates that within 24 hours of the attack that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens, Foreign Service Officer Sean Smith, and former Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty at the CIA annex, there were strong indicators that the attack was planned at least a week in advance, and was retaliation for a June 2012 drone strike that killed an Al Qaeda strategist — there is no discussion of a demonstration or an anti-Islam video, which were initially cited by the Obama administration as contributing factors.
 
“The attack was planned ten or more days prior to approximately 01 September 2012. The intention was to attack the consulate and to kill as many Americans as possible to seek revenge for the US killing of Aboyahiye (Alaliby) in Pakistan and in memorial of the 11 September 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center buildings.”
 
The DIA report also states a little-known group, “Brigades of the Captive Omar Abdul Rahman,” claimed responsibility, though the group has not figured prominently in previous congressional investigations. The document goes on to say the group’s leader is Abdul Baset, known by the name Azuz, “sent by (Al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri) to set up Al Qaeda bases in Libya.”
 
“The Obama administration says it was a coincidence that it occurred on 9/11. In fact, their intelligence said it wasn’t a coincidence and in fact specifically the attack occurred because it was 9/11,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton told Fox News.
 
Catherine Herridge is an award-winning Chief Intelligence correspondent for FOX News Channel (FNC) based in Washington, D.C. She covers intelligence, the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security. Herridge joined FNC in 1996 as a London-based correspondent.
__________________
BOMBSHELL: What Was Just Revealed About Benghazi Gives Gowdy EXPLOSIVE New Fuel Against Hillary
A potentially damning memo from the Defense Intelligence Agency…
 
May 19, 2015 at 9:27am
 
Given the bombshell revelation about Benghazi that’s just been pried loose from the Obama administration, Hillary Clinton’s anticipated appearance before the House Select Committee investigating the deadly attack in Libya could prove to be even more explosive and potentially damaging for the Democrats’ leading presidential contender. Mrs. Clinton is expected to testify sometime this summer before the panel headed by GOP Rep. Trey Gowdy, reportedly after the State Department has provided the committee with a number of requested documents relating to the former secretary of state’s tenure.
 
Now, a potentially damning new document from the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) — a memo obtained by Judicial Watch after a court challenge to obtain its release — clearly shows that then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton did not disclose to the public credible intelligence that terrorists had planned for an attack on the Benghazi compound, even as she and other administration officials blamed the deadly assault on an amateur video. The Daily Caller provides details of the latest revelation showing that Clinton participated in an apparent cover up of believable intel while misleading the American people, and quite possibly congressional investigators as well:
 
A heavily redacted copy of a Sept. 12, 2012, Defense Intelligence Agency memo to Clinton, then Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, the White House National Security Council and the Joint Chiefs of Staff said “the attack was planned 10 or more days prior on approximately 01 September 2012. The intention was to attack the consulate and to kill as many Americans as possible to seek revenge for U.S. killing of Aboyahiye ((ALALIBY)) in Pakistan and in memorial of the 11 September 2001 atacks (sic) on the World Trade Center buildings.”
 
And it wasn’t as though the DIA-provided intelligence was late in arriving on Mrs. Clinton’s State Department desk. The memo unearthed by Judicial Watch shows it was given to Clinton and other senior administration officials the day after the September 11, 2012, attack that took the lives of four Americans. As Breitbart News notes, “The details of the memo present an alternative explanation for the Benghazi attack that was given short shrift by the Obama administration after the attack. Instead, the State Department and the White House chose to emphasize a ‘demonstration’ (which it turned out had never happened) held in connection with a YouTube video critical of Islam.”
 
To understand why the Obama administration was so intent on pushing the anti-Islam video explanation of the Benghazi attack, one must remember that Barack Obama was running for reelection in September of 2012 in what seemed at the time to be a close race. For it to appear that his administration ignored or downplayed evidence that a coordinated terror attack had been in the works in Benghazi might have helped put Mitt Romney in the White House.
 
Ironically, considering the new information in the just-released DIA memo — and the potential it has for lighting an even hotter fire under Hillary Clinton when she is put on Trey Gowdy’s congressional hot seat — it may turn out that Benghazi drives a big, sharp nail in the coffin of Mrs. Clinton’s bid to be the next Democrat to occupy the Oval Office.
______________________________
Clinton email mess multiplies with allegations over 2nd email address
 
May 19, 2015
FoxNews.com’s Judson Berger contributed to this report.
 
The Hillary Clinton email mystery took yet another confusing turn Tuesday with accusations from Republicans that the former secretary of state “misled” the public about her email practices, by using multiple “secret” addresses despite claims to the contrary.
 
However, a spokesman with the House committee probing the 2012 Benghazi attack, and Clinton’s handling of it, would not go so far. Rather, he told FoxNews.com the confusion only further underscores the need to subject Clinton’s private server to a third-party analysis, saying that’s the only way to resolve this.
 
The questions over multiple Clinton addresses were raised after emails were published as part of a lengthy New York Times report on Clinton confidante Sidney Blumenthal’s memos on Libya before and after the fall of Muammar Qaddafi. The emails show Clinton writing from the address, hrod17@clintonemail.com. This is distinct from the other address she has acknowledged using as secretary of state, hdr22@clintonemail.com.
 
“Hillary Clinton misled public about the use of only one secret email address,” Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus tweeted in reference to the documents, while promoting an RNC memo outlining the alleged discrepancies.
 
This, however, is not the first time the ‘hrod17’ address has turned up. The House committee investigating the Benghazi attacks earlier this year said it had records showing “two separate and distinct email addresses” from Clinton, and requested documents from both the ‘hrod17’ and ‘hdr22’ accounts.
 
At the time, Clinton’s lawyer and office attributed the appearance of two email addresses to a simple mix-up.
 
They maintained Clinton only used “one email account” as secretary of state, and that the ‘hrod17’ account did not exist during her tenure. They said she only launched that account in early 2013, after her prior address was published online.
 
As for why both email addresses were turning up in records, her office explained that the new email address (the ‘hrod17’ account) happened to show up on printed copies of old documents because it was the same account — but it did not exist at the time.
 
FoxNews.com has reached out to Clinton’s office asking if the emails published by The New York Times reflect a similar situation.
 
However, the spokesman for the Benghazi committee told FoxNews.com it’s simply not clear whether the multiple emails reflect a glitch — or prove Clinton really was using two email addresses, contrary to what her office claims. Spokesman Jamal Ware said in an email they need a neutral, third-party arbiter to investigate.
 
“There’s only one way to know that for certain,” Ware said in an email. “For Clinton to turn over the server for independent analysis.”
 
Clinton, a Democratic presidential candidate for 2016, so far has resisted doing so. But, taking the rare step Tuesday of answering reporter questions while on the campaign trail, Clinton said during a stop in Iowa that she wants the State Department to do all it can to expedite the release of her emails during her tenure as secretary.
 
“I have said repeatedly I want those emails out,” Clinton said.
 
Ware also referred FoxNews.com to a March 4 statement in which the Benghazi committee first revealed they had records with two distinct Clinton email addresses. At the time, the committee likewise said they need someone to have access to the server to determine why those two email addresses show up.
 
Amid the tug-of-war over the server, the State Department did propose, in connection with a separate court case, that they release part of the 55,000 pages of Clinton emails by January. A federal judge on Tuesday, though, rejected that plan and ordered the department to come up with a schedule by next week for releasing the emails on a rolling basis. A State Department spokesman said they would comply.
 
The New York Times story, meanwhile, covered much more than the existence of two email accounts. It detailed how Blumenthal sent multiple memos to Clinton during her State Department years on the situation in Libya, while he was advising business associates seeking contracts from Libya’s transitional government.
 
The venture reportedly was not successful. And it’s ultimately unclear what, if anything, Clinton and the State Department knew of Blumenthal’s involvement in any potential Libya projects.
 
Asked about the report on Tuesday, Clinton said she has “many old friends,” and it’s important to get “outside the bubble” to hear advice from other people. “I’m going to keep talking to friends,” she said.
___________________________________
Benghazi Conspiracy Now Closer to Criminal Behavior
John R. Houk
© May 19, 2015
_________________________________
New docs reveal administration knew about Benghazi 10 days before attack
 
© Copyright 2008-2015, Legal Insurrection, All Rights Reserved.
_______________________________
Military intel predicted rise of ISIS in 2012, detailed arms shipments from Benghazi to Syria
 
©2015 FOX News Network, LLC. All rights reserved.
____________________________________
BOMBSHELL: What Was Just Revealed About Benghazi Gives Gowdy EXPLOSIVE New Fuel Against Hillary
 
Copyright ©2015. All rights reserved.
___________________________________
Clinton email mess multiplies with allegations over 2nd email address
 
©2015 FOX News Network, LLC. All rights reserved.