The FBI’s year-long investigation of Hillary Clinton’s private email server uncovered 14,900 emails and documents from her time as secretary of state that had not been disclosed by her attorneys, and a federal judge on Monday pressed the State Department to begin releasing emails sooner than mid-October as it planned.
Justice Department lawyers said last week that the State Department would review and turn over Clinton’s work-related emails to a conservative legal group. The records are among “tens of thousands” of documents found by the FBI in its probe and turned over to the State Department, Justice Department attorney Lisa Ann Olson said Monday in court.
[…]Lawyers for the State Department and Judicial Watch, the legal group, are negotiating a plan for the release of the emails in a civil public records lawsuit before U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg of Washington.
[…]Judicial Watch filed the lawsuit in May 2015 after disclosures that Clinton had exclusively used a personal email server while secretary of state. Judicial Watch had sought all emails sent or received by Clinton at the State Department in a request made under the federal Freedom of Information Act, which covers the release of public records.
Hillary is the first Secretary of State to have a private e-mail server hidden from her employers, which she kept in her home. Hillary withheld more of her emails from investigators as “personal and private”, and released less than half of them to the State Department. She deleted more e-mails than she turned over to the State Department.
I work for a major company. About 1 out of every 1000 e-mails I send is personal, and it is usually a reminder that I sent to myself (and CC my Dad) to bring coffee creamer to work because I ran out. I assume that my employers have access to my work e-mail, which is why I don’t put anything sensitive and personal in it. In any big company, all your work e-mails are subject to investigation if anything goes wrong… which is why Hillary didn’t want her employer having access to hers.
Hillary has been trying to blame her decision to hide her e-mails from her employer on Colin Powell, of all people.
Colin Powell is pushing back on reports suggesting that he might have given Hillary Clinton the idea to use a private email account as Secretary of State, telling media outlets that “her people are trying to pin it on me.”
[…]”The truth is, she was using (the private email server) for a year before I sent her a memo telling her what I did,” Powell said.
CNN has reached out to the Clinton campaign, as well as representatives for Powell, and has not yet received a response.
Powell, who endorsed Barack Obama for president in 2008 and 2012, has not yet made a formal endorsement in the 2016 presidential election.
Now, I know what Democrat voters will say to this because I’ve talked to some Democrat voters that I know. They’re not going to care. They don’t have any moral sense to see anything wrong with what Clinton did. What is important to them is that their pro-abortion, anti-religious liberty agenda move forward. Little things like transparency and accountability in government don’t matter. Who cares about morality, the Democrat voters say – just give us our fun and give us our stuff.
I was listening to the Ben Shapiro show Monday night, and he gave his best guess about why Hillary had a private e-mail server. His guess, which surprises no one, is that Hillary sold her authority at the State Department for money. She got contributions to the Clinton Foundation, and enormous speaking fees from banks, foreign corporations, etc. She’s raised half a billion dollars for her campaign. I guess that’s what the Presidency costs these days. And why we can’t get any honest candidates.
A new investigation reveals that Bill and Hillary Clinton took in at least $100 million from Middle East leaders. Can such a financially and ethically compromised candidate truly function as our nation’s leader?
The investigation by the Daily Caller News Foundation has uncovered a disturbing pattern of the Clintons’ raising money for the Clinton Foundation from regimes that have checkered records on human rights and that aren’t always operating in the best interests of the U.S. By the way, the $100 million we mentioned above doesn’t appear to include another $30 million given to the Clintons by two Mideast-based foundations and four billionaire Saudis.
All told, it’s a lot of money.
“These regimes are buying access,” Patrick Poole, a national security analyst who regularly writes for PJ Media, told the DCNF. “You’ve got the Saudis. You’ve got the Kuwaitis, Oman, Qatar and the UAE (United Arab Emirates). There are massive conflicts of interest. It’s beyond comprehension.”
[…]Meanwhile, former U.S. Attorney Joseph E. diGenova told the Caller that he believes the FBI has launched a second, possibly more serious investigation into possible political corruption involving the Clinton Foundation. This is potentially explosive, given that the Clintons seem to have run their charity in a way that lines their own pockets.
The question is an open one: Did the oil-rich Mideast nations give lavishly to the Clinton Foundation in an effort to influence future U.S. policy? And what about Bill Clinton’s business partnership with Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Dubai’s authoritarian ruler, from 2003 to 2008? Clinton took away some $15 million in “guaranteed payments” from the deal, his tax records show.
[…]In just the past three years, after her stint as the nation’s top diplomat, Hillary Clinton spoke to dozens of deep-pocket firms on Wall Street, typically charging $250,000 a pop to hear her wit and wisdom — despite her bitter condemnations of Wall Street during her campaign.
All told, she took in an estimated $22 million from these speeches — an extraordinary amount, given the growing consensus among foreign-policy thinkers that Clinton was one of the worst secretaries of state ever.
Now, I thought that Hillary Clinton was supposed to be all concerned about women’s rights and blah blah blah. Why then is she taking in all this money from the leaders of all these Middle East (Muslim) countries, some of whom do not treat women very well at all? And why isn’t the mainstream media covering this story?
The pro-abortion California attorney general’s office raided on Tuesday the home of the undercover investigator who exposed Planned Parenthood’s trafficking of aborted babies’ body parts, according to the Center for Medical Progress.
David Daleiden, the head of the Center for Medical Progress, has been a target of abortion activists and their political friends ever since he released the first undercover video last summer showing a top Planned Parenthood official discussing the sale of aborted babies’ body parts. Since then, CMP has released a dozen undercover videos of the abortion giant’s employees and partner research groups, exposing their horrendous baby body parts trade. However, pro-abortion politicians have been ignoring the evidence of wrong-doing at Planned Parenthood and attacking CMP instead.
Daleiden released the following statement about the raid of his California home:
Today (Tuesday), the California Attorney General’s office of Kamala Harris, who was elected with tens of thousands of dollars from taxpayer-funded Planned Parenthood, seized all video footage showing Planned Parenthood’s criminal trade in aborted baby parts, in addition to my personal information.
Ironically, while seizing my First Amendment work product, they ignored documents showing the illicit scheme between StemExpress and Planned Parenthood. This is no surprise–Planned Parenthood’s bought-and-paid-for AG has steadfastly refused to enforce the law against the baby body parts traffickers in our state, or even investigate them–while at the same time doing their bidding to harass and intimidate citizen journalists. We will pursue all remedies to vindicate our First Amendment rights.
Rachele Huennekens, a spokeswoman for state Attorney General Kamala Harris, told CBS DFW that she could not comment on any ongoing investigation.
Harris, a Democrat who is running for U.S. Senate, is endorsed by the pro-abortion National Organization for Women. NOW describes her as a “longtime, vocal supporter of Planned Parenthood” who promised to investigate the Center for Medical Progress and fight for taxpayer funding of the abortion business.
This story reminds me of how the IRS treated conservative and Christian groups differently from liberal groups. It’s not the big oil company who hold up your application for non-profit status because you’re a conservative. It’s big government. That’s who has real power over you.
What is the solution?
One question you have to ask yourself is why the Democrats are so interested in helping out Planned Parenthood. The answer to that question is simple. The Democrats give the Planned Parenthood the taxpayer money. The Planned Parenthood uses the taxpayer money to start the abortion clinics to make more money. The Planned Parenthood gives the Democrats some of their profits as political contributions. If the Planned Parenthood goes out of business, then the political donations to the Democrats will stop. So, when the investigative journalists threaten the flow of political contributions to the Democrats, then the Democrats attack the investigative journalists.
Who is trying to solve the problem?
The Republican party tries to de-fund Planned Parenthood so that they don’t have any more money to perform abortions and then give the Democrats political contributions.
The House of Representatives voted today for legislation that would temporarily de-fund Planned Parenthood while an investigation continues into it s sale of aborted babies and their body parts.
The House voted 241 to 187 for the bill with 239 Republicans voting for the bill to defund the Planned Parenthood abortion business and 3 Democrats joining them. Three Republicans voted against the defunding bill while 183 Democrats voted against it.
Rep. Diane Black, a Tennessee Republican who is the pro-life lawmaker sponsoring the legislation and a nurse for more than 40 years, sponsored the legislation. The bill would freeze Planned Parenthood funding for one year while Congress conducts an investigation into its sales of aborted babies. The House vote would follow one the Senate had weeks ago, which saw Senate Democrats filibuster and block legislation to revoke $550 million in taxpayer funding. The Senate is expected to vote soon on a second attempt to de-fund Planned Parenthood.
A new Congressional report finds that de-funding the Planned Parenthood abortion business — even for one year — would save “several thousand” unborn babies from the nightmare of abortion. The report also finds de-funding Planned Parenthood would save the federal government $235 million.
During the debate, House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy spoke on the House floor in defense of innocent human life and urged his colleagues to put a moratorium on Planned Parenthood funding in light of its barbaric practices.
“So if we know that this organization performs hundreds of thousands of abortions per year and we know that women have access to other sources for care, the question is, should we force taxpayers to fund a business that spends its money aborting 327,653 children per year? Should we force taxpayers to fund an organization whose barbaric practices, as vividly shown in those videos, disregard and devalue the sanctity of the most innocent human lives?” he asked.
He added: “There is no reason—absolutely no reason—that we must choose between funding women’s health and compelling taxpayers to support abortion.”
Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) talked about how Planned Parenthood is not in the business of women’s health care and is really just an abortion company.
[…]“In the history of Planned Parenthood, they have never, ever, ever done one mammogram, because they are not certified to do mammograms. They bring people in and refer them out to get their mammograms. So, for those of us –like in my case, three daughters and a wife of 37 years –look, I want good women’s healthcare. So, let’s fund it,” he said. “But, let’s give it directly to the facilities that will do the mammograms and not Planned Parenthood – for them to take their cut.”
President Barack Obama has already threatened to veto the bill.
Hillary Clinton also spoke out in favor of for-profit organ-harvesting from born-alive children.
After today’s House vote to de-fund the Planned Parenthood abortion business, Hillary Clinton took to twitter to adamantly defend taxpayer funding for the abortion company.
The Republicans also want to hold Planned Parenthood criminally responsible for performing abortions on born-alive babies.
The House of Representatives today approved a pro-life bill that would hold the Planned Parenthood abortion business criminally liable for harvesting body parts from aborted babies who are technically still alive.
The center for Medical Progress has released 10 videos catching and exposing Planned Parenthood officials selling aborted babies and their body parts. One of the most shocking videos caught the nation’s biggest abortion business harvesting the brain of an aborted baby who was still alive.
The Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, sponsored by pro-life Congressman Trent Franks would make failure to provide standard medical care to children born alive during an abortion a federal crime. It would also apply stronger penalties in cases where an overt act is taken to kill the abortion survivor.
[…]Congressman Chris Smith implored the House to pass the bill.
“Undercover videos by the Center for Medical Progress have again brought into sharp focus that some babies actually survive abortion,” the New jersey congressman said.
“Dr. Savita Ginde, Medical Director of Planned Parenthood Rocky Mountains says ‘sometimes we get—if someone delivers before we get to see them for a procedure—they are intact…’ that is, Madame Speaker, born alive. Breathing, crying, gasping for air. One fetal tissue broker describes on the video watching a ‘fetus …just fall out.’ And left to die.”
“We have a duty to protect these vulnerable children from violence, exploitation and death. Humanitarian due diligence requires that born alive babies be taken to a hospital to obtain care and enhance prospects of survival,” Smith added. “Abortion clinics have no incentive whatsoever to save the child. Abortion clinics do not have neonatal intensive care units—they are in the business of killing babies, not saving them.”
“The Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act (H.R. 3504), authored by pro-life champion Trent Franks simply says any child who survives an abortion must be given the same care as any other premature baby born at the same gestational age. This legislation builds on the landmark Born Alive Infant Protection Act of 2002 authored by Steve Chabot by adding important enforcement provisions,” he concluded.
The House voted 248 to 177 for the bill with 239 Republicans voting for the bill and 5 Democrats joining them. No Republicans voted against the pro-life bill while 177 Democrats voted against it. One member voted present.
A pro-life Senator says he will introduce the Senate version of the bill on Monday. Senator Ben Sasse told LifeNews.com that he will introduce companion legislation in the Senate when Congress resumes its work on Monday.
He said: “If this isn’t the most non-controversial sentence in American politics, it’s time to check our national conscience: newborn babies must receive care and attention. Societies are judged by how we care for the vulnerable and surely anyone with a heart— regardless of where they stand on the abortion debate— should be able to agree that our laws should protect newborns. I’m grateful that a bipartisan majority of the House stood up for babies and I look forward to introducing companion legislation in the Senate next week.”
Despite passage of the bill, the Obama administration says President Barack Obama would veto the measure.
There were a lot of “pro-life” people who voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012. I personally spoke to young evangelicals who claimed to be pro-life who but voted for Obama to stop global warming and to get condoms and free health care. Maybe next time we have an election, the pro-life people can vote pro-life for a change. Even if the Democrat is really, really good-looking, and has likability, and a nice way of speaking – let’s still vote pro-life, even then.
Hillary Clinton could not help but laugh Friday when a reporter asked her to release the transcripts from her high-priced Goldman Sachs speeches at a rope line in New Hampshire.
“Will you release the transcript of your paid speeches at Goldman Sachs?” a reporter from the Intercept asked Clinton at a campaign event, referring to the $675,000 she has earned in speaking fees from the bank.
Clinton looked directly at the reporter, and after a pause, laughed in his face. She then carried on greeting supporters.
“There’s a lot of controversy over those speeches,” the reporter said. “Secretary?”
Clinton continued to speak over the reporter, drowning him out.
“Hi! So glad to see you!” Clinton said.
“Is that a no?” the reporter persisted.
Clinton ignored his question and repeated a greeting to another supporter.
“I am so happy to see you,” Clinton said.
“Secretary Clinton, will you release the transcript of your Goldman Sachs speeches?” the reporter said again. Clinton ignored him.
Clinton has come under scrutiny for giving high-priced speeches, averaging $225,000 per gig, at big banks such as Goldman Sachs, all the while preaching about income inequality on the campaign trail. She and her husband have made more than $125 million in speaking fees since 2001.
Here is the video where she laughs at the questioner, and then ignores him, even after repeated attempts to get her to be accountable:
You might remember that Clinton often talks about how she is “dead broke”. Is she really “dead broke”?
Disclosure forms filed with the Federal Election Commission by Hillary Clinton provide fascinating details of the remarkable money-making machine that is the once-and-possibly-future first couple. Between January 2014 and the filing of the forms on May 15, 2015 (up to and including a speech by Bill Clinton to the American Institute of Architects the day before the filing), the Clintons made about $30 million, approximately $25 million from speeches alone.
Both of the Clintons have given speeches regularly in the 16-month period covered in the filing with rarely more than a few weeks off in between engagements. Often events are crowded together during a period of several days, sometimes with more than one speech on the same day. On a single day last October, Bill and Hillary delivered a total of four speeches, taking home over $1 million. Those four speeches fell in the middle of a three-day blitz that brought in a total of $1,511,000. (Mrs. Clinton edged out her husband $786,000 to $725,000.)
[…]Although the audiences for the Clintons vary widely, the actual content and duration of the speeches is not always revealed. However, a YouTube video of Bill Clinton’s recent speech to the American Institute of Architects, apparently recorded by an attendee, shows that the $250,000 fee paid to Mr. Clinton purchased the group a 23 minute speech, an hourly rate of about $652,000.
I went to see the movie 13 hours on Saturday and found that it dovetailed nicely with all the stories that I had written on this blog about the events in Libya and the subsequent lies and cover-up by the Obama administration.
I was asked to review the movie and post all of the links to the previous stories by my friends Kevin and McKenzie, so that’s what I’m going to do.
So, I am a huge war movie fan, and I read military biography and military history. The most frustrating thing in war movies and books about war is that the go too far down to the level of details, without providing the context. Very frustrating. I don’t want movies to be too much about action and fancy animations. I want to learn something about the strategy and tactics in play. And 13 Hours does not disappoint.
You get a lot of exposure to the real world of espionage, black ops and drones for one thing. They show you the insides of a real CIA station in Libya, tell how it was acquired, and they show what goes on there. You also get to see what diplomats do, and who is responsible for keeping them safe. The battle scenes feature a ton of top down / map-like shots. There are shots of maps with the buildings and who will be deployed where, and for what reason.
Everything is called by its real name, e.g. – a technical is not called “a pickup truck with a heavy weapon”, it’s called a “technical”. An AC-130 gunship is not “air support” it’s an AC-130 gunship. A Predator drone is not a drone, it’s a Predator. An F-16 is not a “fighter jet” it’s an F-16. A QRF is not a “Quick Reaction Force”, it’s a QRF. Too bad for you if you don’t read enough to know what these things are and how they work. Everyone should be interested in these things, because these things matter for national security and foreign policy.
And the actual scenes of shooting is not mindless gunplay like in “Inception” or “The Matrix” – they try to show you the ranges, the cover, the concealment, the lines of sight, suppression, etc. There is realistic confusion about fog of war (FOW) and identifaction: friend of foe (IFF). The fact that this is a true story where the people involved all collaborated on the book and on the movie makes it really something if you like realism. This is how State Department and CIA work in other countries really goes down. If you liked “Act of Valor”, “American Sniper”, “Blackhawk Down”, “Lone Survivor” or the battle scenes in “Rules of Engagement”, then you need to see this movie.
What difference at this point does it make?
All right, now the politics was kept to a minimum in the movie, but I was asked to list out all the posts that I wrote about this.
The list of posts goes back in time from October 22, 2015 to September 13th, 2012 (the day after the terrorist attack):
To make a long story short, the Benghazi terrorist attack occurred two months before the 2012 re-election of Barack Obama. And that’s why Obama, Hillary Clinton and Susan Rice lied to the American people about it – they did not want the American people to know how poorly their Libya intervention had worked out. An intervention that was strongly supported by easily-influenced moderate, establishment Republicans such as Marco Rubio, by the way. Everyone who voted for the Obama administration in the 2012 elections voted against the 4 Americans who were killed in that terrorist attack. As Secretary of State, Clinton did not prioritize national security. Her focus was on promoting abortion and gay rights abroad.
Searching by tag name
If you want to search the blog by tag, just add tag/<tagName> to the end of the web page address (URL). The list above was generated with: “https://winteryknight.com/tag/Benghazi“. Use a dash for spaces in the tagName. For my other series of posts about Democrat scandals, such as Fast and Furious, just change the tag name: “https://winteryknight.com/tag/Fast-and-Furious“. You can do the same thing with the e-mail scandal, the Clinton Foundation scandal, and all the other scandals of this corrupt Democrat administration.