The Clinton Chronicles

HEARINGS
'We wired it': Emails suggest Clinton aide stage-managed Benghazi hearing questions

By Catherine Herridge, Pamela K. Browne

Published September 06, 2016
FoxNews.com

Newly released emails suggest a senior Hillary Clinton aide stage-managed her first hearing on the Benghazi terrorist attack by feeding specific topics Clinton wanted to address to Democratic Sen. Robert Menendez, who at the time was acting chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee.

"We wired it that Menendez would provide an opportunity to address two topics we needed to debunk (her actions/whereabouts on 9/11, and these email from Chris Stevens about moving locations,)" Clinton media gatekeeper Philippe Reines wrote to Chelsea Clinton the morning of the Jan. 23, 2013 hearing.

Right out of the gate, the first hearing question from Menendez that day covered both topics referenced by Reines.

Menendez asked for Clinton’s “insights on the decision-making process regarding the location of the Mission.” The senator added, “can you also in your response, you touched upon it in your opening statement, but what actions were you and your staff taking the night of September 11 and into September 12?"

The then-secretary of state had an answer on both fronts. She told the committee that "[Ambassador] Chris [Stevens] was committed to not only being in Benghazi but to the location," and that on the night of the attack, "I was notified of the attack shortly after 4:00 p.m. Over the following hours, we were in continuous meetings and conversations both within the department with our team in Tripoli, with the interagency and internationally."

2016 Election Headquarters
The latest headlines on the 2016 elections from the biggest name in politics.See Latest Coverage →

Stevens was among four Americans killed in the attack.

The emails were obtained by the group Citizens United as part of its ongoing Freedom of Information Act request to the State Department for emails from Chelsea Clinton and Hillary Clinton's closest aides.

“This email chain provides a rare behind the scenes look at which Benghazi-related issues the Clinton camp had concerns about going into Secretary Clinton’s January 2013 testimony on Capitol Hill, and what they had apparently plotted out beforehand with a Democrat committee member to deal with those concerns,” Citizens United said in a statement. “Citizens United will continue to release all new Benghazi emails we receive through our FOIA lawsuits as they come in -- the American people have a right to know the full picture.”

Fox News asked the Clinton campaign as well as Menendez's office if they coordinated before the 2013 Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing; what was meant by the term "wired;" and how the email exchange was consistent with the principle of independent congressional oversight. There was no immediate response from either.

In 2013, the New Jersey senator -- who is now facing federal public corruption charges -- at the time of the hearing was about to become chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, replacing John Kerry who was in line to replace Hillary Clinton as secretary of state. Menendez has denied any wrongdoing.

A previous release of emails from a separate FOIA action showed that on the night of the attack, Clinton told her daughter, who used the email pseudonym Diane Reynolds on clintonemail.com, that the attacks were the work of an "Al Queda-like group" – with no mention of an obscure anti-Islam video Clinton publicly linked to the 2012 terrorist attack. Chelsea Clinton uses the same pseudonym in the Menendez email.

Reines is a founding member of the Clinton-aligned consulting group Beacon Global Strategies. The online bios for its founders and managing director suggest no group knows more about the Benghazi terrorist attack and the Obama administration's response.

One of its senior counselors is former CIA Acting Director Mike Morell, who heavily edited the controversial Benghazi talking points, which helped establish the administration’s initial flawed narrative about the attack. Morell recently endorsed Clinton to the New York Times, but later was criticized for not fully disclosing his relationship to Beacon.

In a follow up Q-and-A with the Times, Morell wrote: "Among the many things I do in my post-government life -- teaching and writing, serving on corporate boards, speaking publicly on national security issues -- is work with Beacon Global Strategies, a firm that has prioritized nonpartisanship. The firm’s advisory board -- composed of appointees of both Republican and Democratic presidents, as well as career military officers -- make that priority clear. It all stems from a strong and shared belief that our national security is paramount and needs to be devoid of partisan politics."


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.

Pamela K. Browne is Senior Executive Producer at the FOX News Channel (FNC) and is Director of Long-Form Series and Specials. Her journalism has been recognized with several awards. Browne first joined FOX in 1997 to launch the news magazine “Fox Files” and later, “War Stories.”
 
"Clinton ultimately earned $65.4 million from consulting, speaking and writing fees during Hillary Clinton's four years as secretary of State.

Laureate has given between $1 and $5 million to the Clinton Foundation, according to the charitable organization’s website.

Laureate has also made millions of dollars in charitable contributions through the Clinton Global Initiative, an arm of the foundation that arranged for corporations to make public pledges for their own philanthropic projects."

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...ill-clinton-made-nearly-18m-off-honorary-role
 
gmc14450220160906111200.jpg
 
Hillary Clinton Pre-Blames Russians For A November Loss
hillary-clinton-russian-conspiracy-theory-800x420.jpg


Election 2016: In her first extended Q&A with reporters in nine months, Hillary Clinton spent much of it suggesting that Russian President Vladimir Putin was working with Donald Trump to defeat her in November. If she's so confident of winning in November, why is Clinton already making excuses for losing?

When a reporter aboard Clinton's campaign plane asked if Putin is using cyberwarfare to help elect Trump, Clinton said "I'm not going to jump to conclusions." She then proceeded to jump away.

She said recent events aren't mere coincidence. "I often quote a great saying that I learned from living in Arkansas for many years: 'If you find a turtle on a fence post, it didn't get there by itself.' " She then added, in case anyone didn't get her point, that "I think it's quite intriguing that this activity has happened around the time Trump became the nominee."

She said that Trump "has generally parroted what is a Putin/Kremlin line." Etc., etc.

Clinton's VP, Tim Kaine, basically accused Trump of ordering the hack on the DNC. "He has openly encouraged Russia to engage in cyberhacking to try to find more emails or materials, and we know that this cyberattack on the DNC was likely done by Russia," Kaine said on Sunday. "A president was impeached and had to resign over an attack on the DNC during a presidential election in 1972."

The Democratic Party has joined in. Sen. Harry Reid last week asked the FBI to investigate whether Russia was trying to "falsify election results" and hand the election to Trump.

The mainstream press, naturally, has been happy to carry water for the Democrats without challenging such fact-free conspiracy-mongering.

But a casual glance at the timeline shows how fanciful such speculation is. Russians reportedly breached the DNC's servers back in June 2015. That was long before anyone took Trump's campaign seriously.

Also, the fact that the DNC had been hacked was publicly announced in June 2016 -- more than a month before Trump had said anything about Russia and Hillary's emails. And the first item released from that hack was the DNC'sopposition research file on Trump.

At the time, nobody claimed Russia was trying to elect Trump, since the first release wasn't exactly flattering to him. In fact, the Washington Post reportedthat the DNC hack was part of a broader effort by Russians to target both political parties.

"The intrusion into the DNC was one of several targeting American political organizations. The networks of presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump were also targeted by Russian spies, as were the computers of some Republican political action committees, U.S. officials said," the Post article stated.

The claim that Russia was trying to help Trump win an election only came about after WikiLeaks posted embarrassing DNC emails.

So why is Clinton desperate to claim that Trump is in league with Putin?

There are only two reasons that make sense. First, the claim is meant to undermine support for Trump by planting the idea -- without providing any actual evidence -- that he's in cahoots with a foreign government. In other words, it is another example of the dirty politics we've come to expect from Democrats.

The second reason is that Democrats -- fearful of a Clinton loss -- are laying the groundwork to challenge any outcome that isn't favorable to her by claiming the election was rigged. If that's the case, it's beyond dirty politics.

The Washington Post reported on Monday that U.S. intelligence and law enforcement agencies are investigating efforts by Russia not to elect Trump but to "sow public distrust" in the upcoming election and "provide propaganda fodder to attack U.S. democracy-building policies around the world."

If that is, in fact, Putin's nefarious plan, the Democrats are playing right into his hands.

http://www.investors.com/politics/e...nton-pre-blames-russians-for-a-november-loss/
 
FBI notes undercut Clinton's biggest selling point
maxresdefault.jpg


Hillary Clinton, a candidate without a message or platform to stand on, has just had her legs knocked out from underneath her. On the Friday before a long Labor Day weekend, the Federal Bureau of Investigation released its investigation summary and interview notes with Clinton. The damning revelations undercut her biggest selling point to voters: Her ability to lead.

Since the Republican and Democratic conventions, Clinton has sought to label Donald Trump as lacking the judgement and temperament to serve as commander in chief. In polling, voters have largely seen her as the more reliable candidate. But recent revelations from the FBI, coupled with Trump's recent message discipline, could completely alter the course of the election.

Whether it is gross incompetence, forced amnesia, deep seated corruption or a combination of all three, the released summary and notes from the FBI demonstrate that Clinton does not have the judgement or temperament to be commander in chief. Rather than show leadership, her attempt to cover up for her private email server makes her look more like a clumsy criminal than someone who can be trusted with classified information.

Among the damning revelations was the fact that Clinton did not wipe her private email server clean until the New York Times broke the news. A Clinton aide also admitted that on at least two occasions phones Clinton used were smashed with a hammer to destroy them. It was also revealed that Clinton used eight blackberries that were never reviewed by the FBI because they cannot be located.

Despite being privy to our nation's top secrets and her desire to oversee the world's largest nuclear arsenal and superpower as president of the United States, Clinton claimed to the FBI that she could not recount one example of how information becomes classified. She also said she thought the "C" marking classified information as "confidential" had to do with alphabetizing. Even though her private server was less secure than Gmail and contained national security information, Clinton emailed President Obama from it while in foreign countries. She incompetently told the FBI that the classification of future drone strikes depended on the context. Unsurprisingly, her unsecure email was subject to phishing scams, and she opened at least one link that "contained a potentially malicious link."

The information published by the FBI also highlights the discrepancies between what she told voters and what she told investigators. Hillary Clinton initially claimed the convenience of one device as her reason for using a private email server and address for work and her personal life, but she had 13 mobile devices and five iPads. Clinton promised voters she turned over all of her work-related emails, but there were 17,488 that she never gave to the State Department inspector general. She also promised that she used safeguards to protect her private server but told the FBI there was no security.

Even more troubling is the fact Clinton and her aides told the FBI and Judicial Watch 378 times that they could not recall the details of private server and setup. Clinton alleged she could not recall any conversations regarding the creation of her email account. Her account was conveniently echoed by Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills, Deputy Chief of Staff Huma Abedin, and Undersecretary for Management Patrick Kennedy.

With 61 days left until the Nov. 8 election, Hillary Clinton has lost her biggest asset. After repeatedly lying to the American people, maliciously deleting evidence and idiotically claiming she doesn't understand classified information, Clinton lacks the ability to be commander in chief.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/fbi-notes-undercut-clintons-biggest-selling-point/article/2601130

 
Bill and Hillary Clinton sold $130,000,000 of access and influence. The foundation is a racket. Wikileaks is about to connect the money precisely to the political favors in great detail.

It says a lot about Democrats. No corruption is too foul.

Says allot about Democrats, in general. If Trump openly accepted bribes and wrote law to favor donors, I wouldn't vote for that sack of shit. Nor would I vote for him if he hosted a yahoo bathroom email server, parlaying state secrets and getting spies killed and arming terrorists.

Democrats support this shit. Shows what kind of people they are.
 
Absolute, Categorical Lies

SEP 12, 2016 | By STEPHEN F. HAYES

280x280-8282ce2b855a68ecf594fde537174335.jpg




On March 10, 2015, Hillary Clinton told reporters at a rare press conference that she had “absolute confidence that everything that could be in any way connected to work is now in the possession of the State Department."

No parsing required. Absolute confidence, she said. In any way connected to work.

On August 8, 2015, Clinton submitted a signed declaration to the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., swearing "under penalty of perjury" that she'd directed all emails that "were or potentially were" work-related be turned over to the State Department.

Emphatic. Were or potentially were related to her time as secretary of state.

Then on October 22, 2015, Clinton testified under oath before the House Select Committee on Benghazi. "I provided the department, which has been providing you, with all of my work-related emails—all that I had."

Unqualified, absolute. All that I had.

In May of this year, Clinton told ABC News: "I have provided all of my work-related emails, and I've asked that they be made public, and I think that demonstrates that I wanted to make sure that this information was part of the official records."

Categorical. All of my work-related emails.

Clinton used such unequivocal language on purpose, of course. It was meant to convey certitude about her disclosure of work-related emails, to signal to voters (and reporters) that she was unafraid of being contradicted and, most important, that she had nothing at all to hide.

We know now that her claims were false.

A report by the State Department's inspector general concluded that Clinton had not turned over any of the work-related emails she sent in her first three-plus months on the job, between January 2009 and April 2009. The Defense Department found 19 emails Clinton and General David Petraeus exchanged that were not included in her production to the government. The Benghazi committee uncovered a batch of undisclosed work-related emails between Clinton and Sidney Blumenthal, a longtime Clinton adviser who wrote to share privately sourced intelligence on Libya and other pressing State Department matters. (At the time of their correspondence, the Clinton Foundation was paying Blumenthal $10,000 per month to serve as a consultant.)

It was clear long ago that Hillary Clinton and her team did not, in fact, turn over all work-related emails to the State Department. And in July, we learned that the number of missing work-related emails was exponentially higher than previous reports had suggested. FBI director James Comey stunned even reporters who had long worked on the story when he disclosed just how many Clinton had failed to produce.

"The FBI also discovered several thousand work-related emails that were not among the group of 30,000 emails that were returned by Secretary Clinton to State in 2014. .  .  . It's also likely that there are other work-related emails that they did not produce to State and that we did not find elsewhere and that are now gone."

How could this happen? Comey concluded that Team Clinton did not intentionally withhold the emails and may well have just missed them because their search wasn't comprehensive enough.

We are skeptical. Is it possible that a search of 60,000 messages might somehow miss a few work-related emails? Sure. A few dozen? Plausible. But several thousand? In a search conducted shortly before Hillary Clinton would launch her presidential campaign and conducted by people employed to protect her interests? Dubious.

Then, this past week, we learned that there was yet another set of work-related emails Clinton had failed to produce. Up to 30 emails related to Benghazi were among those Clinton deleted from her private server. We haven't yet seen those latest emails. The Clinton campaign is downplaying their significance, arguing that they may well be duplicates of earlier emails posted by the State Department. Perhaps. But there's little reason to take their word for it. Given that the inquiry into Clinton's emails grew out of the investigation into the Benghazi attacks, one might expect that anyone searching for work-related emails would have included Benghazi as one of the most important search terms. Anyone searching for work-related emails whose goal was to find them, anyway.

It doesn't take much guesswork to understand why Hillary Clinton set up a private email server and why she has lied so aggressively ever since: She didn't want her emails available to the American people. In an email exchange back in 2010, Clinton herself cited that as the reason she did not want to use State Department email. When top aide Huma Abedin suggested "putting [Clinton] on state email" or providing her email address to State Department officials, Clinton wrote back to say: "Let's get separate address or device but I don't want any risk of the personal being accessible."

Clinton didn't provide that one. That email—with a top State Department official about State Department business and concerning the very email set-up that investigators were seeking to learn more about—was not included in the emails that Clinton considered "in any way connected to work."

She got away with it. And, as regards the latest revelations, she will get away with it again.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/absolute-categorical-lies/article/2004128
 
Back
Top