I’m not really as interested in politics any more since we don’t have a conservative running as the Republican candidate, but I do still listen to podcasts and read some news stories.
Here is a news story from the Boston Globe that I felt that I had to blog about.
The Democratic presidential nominee told the FBI she never sought or asked permission to use a private server or email address during her tenure as the nation’s top diplomat from 2009 to 2013. A prior review by the State Department’s internal watchdog concluded the practice violated several polices for the safekeeping and preservation of federal records.
Clinton has repeatedly said her use of private email was allowed. But over a 3 ½ hour interview in July, she told investigators she ‘‘did not explicitly request permission to use a private server or email address,’’ the FBI wrote. They said no one at the State Department raised concerns during her tenure, and that Clinton said everyone with whom she exchanged emails knew she was using a private email address.
[…]Large portions of the FBI documents were censored. The FBI cited exemptions protecting national security and investigative techniques. Previous government reviews of the 55,000 pages of emails Clinton returned to the State Department found that about 110 contained classified information.
Clinton and her legal team deleted thousands more emails she claimed were personal and private. The FBI report details steps taken by Clinton’s staff that appear intended to hamper the recovery of deleted data, including smashing her old Blackberry smartphones with a hammer and using special software to wipe the hard drive of a server she had used.
Funny video of CNN leftists reacting to reality:
The Weekly Standard has been comparing Clinton’s public statements with what she told the FBI, and there headline is “Hillary Signed She Received Briefing on Classified Info, But Told FBI She Hadn’t“.
Either Hillary Clinton lied to the FBI or she lied on a State Department form as she began her tenure as Secretary of State. This conclusion appears inescapable after Friday’s FBI document release related to the Clinton email investigation.
As revealed by those FBI documents, Clinton told agents that she could not recall “any briefing or training by State related to the retention of federal records of handling of classified information”.
But the second paragraph of the Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement—which she signed on January 22, 2009—states that “I hereby acknowledge that I have received a security indoctrination concerning the nature and protection of classified information.”
[…]The form also notes that classified information is not always so marked, but is still regulated by the agreement.
Wow, that sounds to me like the transparency that Obama promised us in his campaign speeches. He was going to lead the most transparent administration ever, remember? And what is his method of holding his staff accountable for these lies? Well, it’s to not prosecute them.
A round-up of reactions from around the Internet, on the right and on the left.
First, here’s radical leftist Chris Cilliza, writing in the radically leftist Washington Post, of all places:
FBI Director James B. Comey dismantled large portions of Clinton’s long-told story about her private server and what she sent or received on it during a stirring 15-minute news conference, after which he took no questions. While Comey exonerated Clinton, legally speaking, he provided huge amounts of fodder that could badly hamstring her in the court of public opinion.
Most importantly, Comey said the FBI found 110 emails on Clinton’s server that were classified at the time they were sent or received. That stands in direct contradiction to Clinton’s repeated insistence she never sent or received any classified emails. And it even stands in contrast to her amended statement that she never knowingly sent or received any classified information.
[…]Comey said Clinton had used not one but multiple private email servers during her time at State. He said Clinton used multiple email devices during that time. (She had offered her desire to use a single device for “convenience” as the main reason she set up the private server.)
[…]It’s hard to read Comey’s statement as anything other than a wholesale rebuke of the story Clinton and her campaign team have been telling ever since the existence of her private email server came to light in spring 2015. She did send and receive classified emails. The setup did leave her — and the classified information on the server — subject to a possible foreign hack. She and her team did delete emails as personal that contained professional information.
Those are facts, facts delivered by the Justice Department of a Democratic administration. And those facts run absolutely counter to the narrative put forth by the Clinton operation: that this whole thing was a Republican witch-hunt pushed by a bored and adversarial media.
There is no way of getting around this: According to Director JamesComey (disclosure: a former colleague and longtime friend of mine), Hillary Clinton checked every box required for a felony violation of Section 793(f) of the federal penal code (Title 18): With lawful access to highly classified information she acted with gross negligence in removing and causing it to be removed it from its proper place of custody, and she transmitted it and caused it to be transmitted to others not authorized to have it, in patent violation of her trust. Director Comey even conceded that former Secretary Clinton was “extremely careless” and strongly suggested that her recklessness very likely led to communications (her own and those she corresponded with) being intercepted by foreign intelligence services.
Yet, Director Comey recommended against prosecution of the law violations he clearly found on the ground that there was no intent to harm the United States.
In essence, in order to give Mrs. Clinton a pass, the FBI rewrote the statute, inserting an intent element that Congress did not require.
[…]Comey noted that her personal e-mail server was less secure than Google’s Gmail:
None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government — or even with a commercial service like Gmail.
[…]I defy any member of the military or any civilian not directly affiliated with Hillary Clinton to engage in such conduct and get away with it. The first thing that would happen is you would lose your security clearance. Next, you would lose your job. Finally, good luck escaping prosecution. Comey claims that prior FBI prosecutions included “some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice.”
I blogged previously about how Clinton’s private unsecure e-mail server was was definitely compromised by foreign governments and hackers. She was the top diplomat of the United States of America. Clandestine agents and their sources would undoubtedly have been compromised.
At the Daily Wire, Ben Shapiro notes that the timing of this non-prosecution is suspect:
Just days after the Attorney General of the United States Loretta Lynch held a secret meeting aboard a plane with former President Bill Clinton – whose wife was under FBI investigation; just the day after Hillary leaked that she’d want Lynch for her own administration; just hours after the President of the United States Barack Obama flew Hillary – still under FBI investigation – down to North Carolina on Air Force One; just two hours before Obama was to open his campaign on behalf of Hillary Clinton, FBI Director James Comey announced that while Hillary Clinton had clearly engaged in criminal activity worthy of prosecution, he had recommended that she not be prosecuted.
After announcing his no-charge recommendation, Comey added:
To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.
In other words, laws are for little people.
So let’s take stock. Nobody was prosecuted for the Clinton Foundation donations from foreign sources. Nobody was prosecuted for Fast and Furious gunrunning to Mexican drug cartels. Nobody was prosecuted for Benghazi. Nobody was prosecuted for the IRS persecution of Christians and conservatives. And nobody was prosecuted for the Clinton unsecure e-mail server.
The Democrat Party likes to bash conservatives for being too tough on national security, national defense and law enforcement. And that desire to coddle criminals and terrorists naturally results in more risk and danger to the law-abiding taxpayers who pay Democrat salaries.
FBI Special Agent in Charge Ronald Hopper told ABC News that the FBI had twice looked into Mateen: In 2013, after he made what Hopper called “inflammatory” comments to co-workers, and again in 2014, after he was linked to Moner Mohammad Abu-Salha, another American who became a radicalized Muslim, who became a suicide bomber in Syria.
Given that Mateen worked for G4S, a Department of Homeland Security contractor, shouldn’t this have raised significant questions?
One of Mateen’s co-workers at G4S, Daniel Gilroy, told the Tampa Bay Times: “He talked about killing people all the time.”
Yes, but Americans can’t say anything about potential Muslim terrorists, or Democrat Attorney General will persecute them for anti-Muslim discrimination. She says that is her top priority, in fact. Not law enforcement. Not investigating the IRS persecution of conservative groups in an election year. No – her top priority is prosecuting those who raise the alarm about potential Islamic terrorists for “hate speech”. This is the Democrat Party.
Mateen was interviewed by investigators three times in relation to those probes, but the FBI determined Mateen was no threat, Hopper said.
Finally, on Monday, FBI Director James Comey said Mateen showed “strong indications of radicalization” and was likely inspired by foreign terrorist organizations.
In short, he was a “known wolf,” not a “lone wolf.” This is a disturbing pattern with terrorist mass murders, whether in Boston, San Bernardino or Ft. Hood, Texas. A pattern of behavior emerges, and is ignored. Ties to extremists are viewed as harmless. Then people are slaughtered.
This problem will not go away. Indeed, the world has been repeatedly drenched with the blood of radical Islam’s victims since 9/11 and before. As the observant Roger L. Simon noted, “Total deadly terror attacks in the name of Allah since 9/11 stand at 28,576 with who-knows-how-many corpses.”
Recall that the FBI was infiltrated by secular leftist groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center. The secular leftist FBI “partners” teach the FBI that the real threats to America are conservatives, Christians, pro-lifers, law-abiding gun owners, veterans, and those who believe in traditional marriage. That’s where the FBI’s attention has been for the last 8 years. Not on radical Islam, which they take to be as peaceful as the Boy Scouts. Obama told them so, and they believe it. All of our national security, national defense and law enforcement organizations believe it.
Is the Democrat President Obama serious about protecting taxpayers from terrorist threats?
Of course not:
[…]President Obama’s response after the attacks was not only disappointing in its failure to recognize the ongoing threat from radical Islam, but likely endangered future American lives with its obtuseness. He couldn’t even bring himself to use the most obvious words of all to describe what happened: “Radical Islamic terrorism.”
“I think we don’t yet know the motivations” of the murder, Obama said. Except, as Britain’s Daily Mail points out, the terrorist “pledged his loyalty to ISIS in a 911 call as he carried out the attack.” The loyalty wasn’t one way: Islamic State radio called the terrorist, Omar Mateen, a “soldier of the Caliphate.”
Maybe the attack was “workplace violence” again? Obama likes to call attacks that are clearly Islamic terrorism “workplace violence”.
And of course, long after the San Bernadino terrorist attack occurred, Obama couldn’t figure out what the motive of the attack was. Probably it was “workplace violence”.
You can be sure that the Obama administration will spare no expense in trying to link the Orlando attack to Tea Party groups, or, failing that, to evangelical Christians. We hired people who sympathize more with our enemies than us to protect us.
In an email marked June 17, 2011, that was released by the State Department on Friday, Clinton informs aide Jake Sullivan that she has not yet received a set of talking points.
“They say they’ve had issues sending secure fax,” Sullivan says. “They’re working on it.”“If they can’t, turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure,” Clinton responds.
[…]The Clinton campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Ia.) chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, called the email “disturbing.”
“The State Department’s latest Freedom of Information Act release contains a disturbing email that appears to show the former Secretary of State instructing a subordinate to remove the headings from a classified document and send it to her in an unsecure manner,” he said in a statement on Friday.
“It raises a host of serious questions and underscores the importance of the various inquiries into the transmittal of classified information through her non-government email server,” he added.
[…]The Democratic primary front-runner is under investigation by the FBI for using a private email server during her tenure at State.
Republicans have accused Clinton of compromising classified data and putting national security at risk by using a non-governmental device to transmit and receive her emails.
The State Department released a new batch of 3,007 emails on Friday, in which it said 66 were classified. The total number of classified messages received from Clinton’s server is now up to 1,340.
As Hillary herself has personally attested — is that none of the sensitive material that she wrongfully transmitted through her unsecure server was “marked classified” at the time. Again, this is meaningless, especially when it comes to highly secret material that she was obligated to recognize and protect as soon as it was produced. But the email chain referenced above includes an instruction from Hillary Clinton to a State Department aide (who now works on her campaign) to strip classified information — it remains redacted to this day — of its classified markings [“identifying heading”] and “send nonsecure.”
Which leads us to Ed Morrissey at Hot Air:
Has the State Department released a smoking gun in the Hillary Clinton e-mail scandal? In a thread from June 2011, Hillary exchanges e-mails with Jake Sullivan, then her deputy chief of staff and now her campaign foreign-policy adviser, in which she impatiently waits for a set of talking points. When Sullivan tells her that the source is having trouble with the secure fax, Hillary then orders Sullivan to have the data stripped of its markings and sent through a non-secure channel.
That should be game, set, and match, yes?
“If they can’t, turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure.” That’s an order to violate the laws handling classified material. There is no other way to read that demand.
Game, set, match, indeed. Every single one of Hillary’s excuses has now evaporated, and this email is a clear instance of giving an order in violation of national security clearance rules.
Hillary Clinton, I don’t need to hasten to add, belongs in jail.
She really does have contempt for rules and regulations that are devised by experts for the good of her country. She does not understand things like encryption and information security. She does not respect the need for national security. She is not qualified to be President. Her only reason for wanting to be President is personal ambition, not the good of her country.
I doubt that she could even survive on her own in this world, without her army of government handlers and assistants driving her around, buying her groceries and showing her how to operate the hardware and software that any teenager can operate. She just hasn’t had the experience needed to be President – she doesn’t know how to do the job. Running around the world trying to push abortion and gay rights on other countries is not good experience for the job.
She needs to retire with her charming husband Bill and talk about the good old days when she was protecting him from the women he assaulted and abused. If she refuses to take responsibility for the terrible harm that she’s done to her country, then maybe she needs to spend the rest of her life in a federal prison.
Obama wants to take in 10,000 Syrian refugees this year, then another 100,000 in 2016 and another 100,000 in 2017.
In previous posts, I have laid out several reasons for why we should not take in Syrian refugees. First and foremost is the cost of taking in Syrian refugees – pegged at $6.5 billion total for just the first 10,000 refugees. Canada is taking in twice that number, and their government costed their plan out at $1.2 billion for only six years. Obama himself doesn’t earn any money, has never worked in the private sector. So he isn’t going to pay for this with his own $6.5 billion with his own hard work. He’s going to pass that bill onto young people to pay, but today he’ll preen for the cameras and show how “generous” he is for spending other people’s money. He already added $10 trillion onto the national debt, doubling it.
Second, we don’t have the national security in place to vet the Syrian refugees. The news lately has been full of cases of people traveling with Syrian documents, and some of them trying to come into the USA through our porous Southern border. In general, we should assume from the many national security failures of the Democrats that they cannot be trusted on anything they say about things being safe. We have the Bradley Manning leak, the Snowden leak, the Hillary Clinton private unsecure e-mail server hack, the Benghazi cover-up, the gun-running to Mexican drug cartels, the leak of the planned Israeli strike on Iran, the leaking of the name of the British spy who foiled the airline bombing attack, and on and on and on. Although none of these are remembered by Democrat supporters of the President, they paint a picture of the administration’s incompetence at protecting Americans. In fact, senior officials in Obama’s own administration confirm that the vetting process is unreliable. They can’t even ask them questions that would help to identify them as terrorist risks.
Third, although many of the refugees are women and children, we have to make two points about that. The first point is that women and children are frequently used in Islamic terrorist attacks. Here’s an article tracing some of the recent Islamic terror attacks involving women and children. We need look no further than the Boston bombers to see how letting in Muslim children can turn into a terrorist risk. They were carefully vetted by the Democrats, and yet they murdered anyway. Second point, there is something to be said about letting in a lot of Muslim immigrants in any case, since a critical mass of Muslim immigrants can create the environment that allows terrorist attacks to be planned. Just read this article on how the Islamic “no go” zones in Paris played a part in the recent terrorist attacks there.
Fourth point is about stewardship. What should we do in order to help the refugees. I’m running short of space, so I’ll just point you to this article that argues that it is a much better use of our money to help the refugees where they are. We can help many more refugees if we leave them over there than we can help if we only bring a few here, for the same cost. Although Democrats who are spending other people’s money don’t care to think of who is paying, it’s always a good idea to spend taxpayer money wisely.
The fifth and final point is something I could not articulate, but that was behind my anger at the well-meaning but naive Christians who were calling for us to take on Syrian refugees on Biblical grounds. I think the real reason I was so angry is as follows:
Naive Christians do not understand anything that is happening in the Middle East. They just don’t follow it, they don’t know the players, the previous attacks, the risks and threats, nothing.
Naive Christians take their cues from a pacificist culture, the left-wing media, and their own fact-free emotions. So, they think that war is NEVER the answer to aggression from evildoers, e.g. – Assad and his controllers in Iran. They just don’t have the understanding of good wars like World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the first Gulf War, etc. that were clearly wars that America undertook in order to help others from terror, torture, murder and rape. They don’t understand that setting up Japan, South Korea, France, Germany, Kuwait, etc. with long-term protection and guidance is what allowed them to recover and become peaceful and democratic.
Naive Christians had nothing to say about staying the course in Afghanistan and Iraq, invading Syria (which we should have done, instead of attacking Egypt and Libya, which was stupid and pointless) and NOT making a deal with Iran. In short, they have nothing to say about preventing the situations where wars and refugees result in the first place. They just want to ride in sanctimoniously after their benign neglect has failed to work, and then appear to be concerned about peace. But only by spending trillions of taxpayer dollars to clean up around the edges, while leaving the core problem intact.
So with all that said, here is the article that cured my anger once about this. It appears in The Weekly Standard, and it involves the indomitable Bill Kristol, quoting a journalist named Walter Mussell Mead, who voted for Obama in 2008, who now writes about Obama’s lack of seriousness about opposing evil with force, the disaster that resulted, and his attempt to paper over his stupidity with sanctimonious statements about taking in refugees from the mess he himself created.
Here it is:
“To see the full cynicism of the Obama approach to the refugee issue, one has only to ask President Obama’s least favorite question: Why is there a Syrian refugee crisis in the first place?
“Obama’s own policy decisions—allowing Assad to convert peaceful demonstrations into an increasingly ugly civil war, refusing to declare safe havens and no fly zones—were instrumental in creating the Syrian refugee crisis. This crisis is in large part the direct consequence of President Obama’s decision to stand aside and watch Syria burn. For him to try and use a derisory and symbolic program to allow 10,000 refugees into the United States in order to posture as more caring than those evil Jacksonian rednecks out in the benighted sticks is one of the most cynical, cold-blooded, and nastily divisive moves an American President has made in a long time. . . .
“To think that conspicuous moral posturing and holy posing over a symbolic refugee quota could turn President Obama from the goat to the hero of the Syrian crisis is absurd. Wringing your hands while Syria turns into a hell on earth, and then taking a token number of refugees, can be called many things, but decent and wise are not among them. You don’t have to be a xenophobe or a racist or even a Republican to reject this President’s leadership on Syria policy. All you need for that is common sense and a moral compass. . . .
“For no one, other than the Butcher Assad and the unspeakable al-Baghdadi, is as responsible for the humanitarian catastrophe in Syria as is President Obama. No one has committed more sins of omission, no one has so ruthlessly sacrificed the well-being of Syria’s people for his own ends, as the man in the White House. In all the world, only President Obama had the ability to do anything significant to prevent this catastrophe; in all the world no one turned his back so coldly and resolutely on the suffering Syrians as the man who sits in the White House today—a man who is now lecturing his fellow citizens on what he insists is their moral inferiority before his own high self-esteem.”
Read the whole thing. Really. And remember than people on the Christian left are basically the same in terms of foolishness as people on the secular left. They are not guided by evidence, but by feelings. And they need to be told early and often how their feelings fail to work in real life. Otherwise, we will continue taking their compassionate naivete seriously, and go bankrupt paying for it, or maybe just get ourselves killed by the evil we allowed to fester. I know a lot of naive leftist Christians are trusting Think Progress and Huffington Post to tell us what the Bible says about refugees, but surprise! Think Progress is not that good at Biblical exegesis.