Monday, June 26, 2017


by -

A federal judge has ordered the State Department to release information regarding what former President Barack Obama knew about the Benghazi attacks. The judge ordered that all previously redacted information in Hillary Clinton’s emails concerning the Obama administration be brought to light.

Judicial Watch, a conservative government watchdog announced U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson’s order on Friday. The group reported that Jackson has ordered the State Department to submit “eight identical paragraphs” of information that were extracted from two of Clinton’s emails on Sept. 13, 2012.

While, the subject line on the emails reads as: “FW: Quick Summary of POTUS Calls to Presidents of Libya and Egypt.” The content of the emails is said to include the conservations that then-President Barack Obama had with leaders of Egypt and Libya two days after the attack that left four Americans dead, including the U.S. Ambassador to Libya, Christopher Stevens. Once the emails are released, they could shed light on what Clinton and Obama knew then.

It is also be noted that the State Department had claimed that the emails deserved a “deliberative process” Freedom of Information Act exemption. However, when Jackson completed her personal review of the documents, she said that the documents in fact did not meet the criteria for the exemption. The State Department went on to request Jackson to reconsider her order, and argued that the emails were mistakenly claimed under the exemption and should be ruled under the classified information exemption.

The Judicial Watch argued back that there was no mistake in the exemption status, but was much rather an attempt by the State Department to protect Clinton by “avoiding identifying emails on Clinton’s unofficial, non-secure email server as classified.”

Judicial Watch stated, “An agency’s deliberate withholding of a FOIA claim, either to gain a tactical advantage or, as appears to be the case here, to protect the agency’s interests and those of its former head, is ‘a motive undoubtedly inconsistent with FOIA’s broad remedial purpose’ …”

In a statement, Tom Fitton, President of Judicial Watch made an appeal to President Trump and questioned whether he knew that his State Department is still trying to protect Clinton.

He said, “Does President Trump know his State and Justice Departments are still trying to provide cover for Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama?” Fitton said. “An extraordinary court ruling that could result in key answers about the Benghazi outrage is being opposed by the Trump administration.”

by -
Susan Rice wishes upon a spy satellite: "I want to be a real spy"

Barack Obama’s National Security Advisory, Susan Rice, has been outed by reporters as being behind the order to “unmask” Trump campaign staffers.

The spying operation goes as far back as July of 2016 and picked up pace following Donald Trump’s win on Election Day.

Rice previously denied involvement saying she “knew nothing” about the spying.

Rice also told the public that the attack of a United States embassy in Benghazi was instigated by a “heinous and offensive video.”

That turned out to be a lie.

But Susan Rice is REALLY good at lying.

Days before she was exposed as the source behind the spying order, the former Ambassador to the United Nations (yes this woman represented us in the UN), penned a piece in the Washington Post lambasting Trump’s “utterly ridiculous” insinuation that the British spied on the campaign.

Susan Rice went on to write in a serious tone:

The foundation of the United States’ unrivaled global leadership rests only in part on our military might, the strength of our economy and the power of our ideals. It is also grounded in the perception that the United States is steady, rational and fact-based. To lead effectively, the United States must maintain respect and trust. So, when a White House deliberately dissembles and serially contorts the facts, its actions pose a serious risk to America’s global leadership, among friends and adversaries alike.

Candidly, either this crazy chick likely believes what she’s writing or is so devoid of principles that lying is so commonplace to her, that she thought nothing of her words.

But to write this op/ed in a prominent publication was brazen.

It’s comparable to John Wayne Gacy writing a column to say that bi-sexual clowns make the best friends . . . just before they found bodies in his crawl space.

Susan Rice’s lack of any ethical foundation sends a very clear message that Trump and other leaders appear to ignore: No one can be trusted with this power.

While Congressional leaders talk about “tightening procedures” on who can be “unmasked” the only real solution is to do this: STOP SPYING ON AMERICANS!

No matter who is in power, the power to spy on Americans will be abused in some manner . . . whether legally or illegally.

The only way to prevent future abuses is to adhere to the Fourth Amendment and conduct “searches” only with probable cause that is supported by a true Court of Law (not a secret FISA court).

Otherwise, while it’s Susan Rice today, tomorrow it could be some Trump official.

If that doesn’t get you scratching your head, imagine California’s Jerry Brown being sworn in on January 20, 2021. Could his administration be trusted?

Stranger things have happened.

Please add your comments below.

by -

In Roman ruler Julius Caesar’s account of the Gallic Wars, written in the ancient manuscript Commentarii de Bello Gallico, he describes the principle of “murum aries attigit” – which states that a soon-to-be-conquered city would be offered conditions of surrender by the Romans, but only “before the battering-ram should touch the wall.” And, should it touch the wall, no longer would such mercy would be shown, and only total devastation would follow. The doctrine was meant to foster a diplomatic resolution by dissuading further hostilities with the very real threat of no alternative but death.

In recent years the Russian government, under Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, has adopted a similar doctrine in its response to Islamic terrorism. This approach was first displayed in 2002 when Putin used unconventional – some might say “brutal” — methods of subduing 40 Chechan rebels who had stormed a Moscow theater, taking more than 850 hostages. The raid on the theater, which included the use of a “knock-out” gas, unintentionally resulted in the death of more than 100 hostages. Putin brushed aside criticism, noting the rescue saved hundreds of other hostages while killing all the Islamic terrorists. Moreover, as Putin stated, the response “proved it is impossible to bring Russia to its knees.”

Such a heavy-handed response to a terrorism is utterly unthinkable in Obama World. While Putin has adopted the murum aries attigit doctrine against terrorism, Obama has opted instead for a policy that virtually ignores the very existence of Islamic terrorism. How Russia is likely to respond to this week’s assassination of its Ambassador to Turkey, compared to America’s own responses to recent acts of terrorism, including its own assassinated Ambassador to Libya in 2012, presents a stark contrast in leadership in the post-911 world.

Immediately following the assassination Monday of Russian Ambassador Andrey Karlov, in which the attacker stood over the body shouting support of global jihad, Putin promised to escalate its fight against terrorism, and warned those “bandits” responsible for the assassination “will feel this happening.” Compare this to the Obama Administration’s tepid and waveringan response to the 2012 terror attack on an American diplomatic outpost in Benghazi, Libya. Despite knowing almost immediately the attack was a planned terror attack, Obama’s State Department – led by then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton – denied any connection to Islamic terrorism, and declared the attack was merely a “spontaneous protest” over a YouTube video that got out of hand. Later, when this was proven to be a bald-faced lie, Obama intentionally stonewalled congressional investigations into the many security failures that led to the attack.

There was no declaration of definitive action by Washington, or promise of swift retribution. Such obfuscation of facts, and dodging having to verbally recognize the threat of Islamic terrorism, has been the standard response to acts of terrorism at home and abroad under Obama. For example, Obama and his Democratic cronies in Congress used the 2015 terrorist shooting spree in San Bernardino, California not to announce a commitment to wiping ISIS from the map, but as an excuse to talk about “gun control.” In response to the massacre earlier this year at an Orlando nightclub popular in the gay community, Obama pushed a politically coded message about “tolerance.”

Obama’s inability to accept the reality of global terrorism for fear of offending the globalist community or a cherished interest group, and the lack of definitive action beyond waiting and seeing whether the “international community” will first “come together” to help “degrade” and “manage” such attacks on U.S. citizens and interests, has created a vacuum in which ISIS and its lone-wolf converts are actively plotting future attacks. In fact, Obama’s response to terrorism, if doing so at all, has been so backwards that Al Qaeda even struggles with making sure it gets proper credit for its activities — suggesting attackers target Caucasians so as to avoid such attacks being labeled “hate crimes” rather than terrorism.

by -
Benghazi Report

It took two years and a mind-boggling $7 million for House Republicans to finally complete an exhausting 800-page report on Benghazi that largely reiterates a lot of the information Judicial Watch has already released since the 2012 terrorist attacks on the Special Mission Compound in Libya. That amounts to a staggering $8,750 a page for material piled into an insufferable document that doesn’t even contain a smoking gun.

Nevertheless, members of the Benghazi Select Committee released the findings of their tiresome investigation this week with great fanfare, as if they had uncovered earth-shattering information during their lengthy probe. The reality is that most of the material had already been divulged to the public, much of it by Judicial Watch which has litigated in federal court to uncover the truth about Benghazi and published two special reports (read them here and here) on the attacks that killed U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans. The millions it cost to conduct this particular congressional probe could have been better spent. Not surprisingly, the mainstream media is having a field day pointing out that the two-year investigation produced no bombshells. One national newspaper editorial says that it’s hard to imagine a bigger waste of government resources.

Here’s the spark notes version of the report highlights for those who don’t have the stomach—or time—to go through hundreds of pages; the military was never deployed to help save the victims, the Special Mission Compound didn’t have adequate security and the Obama administration knowingly lied to the American people by claiming the attack was a spontaneous protest ignited by an obscure anti-Muslim internet video.

All of this is old news that was unearthed and disseminated long ago. Before the first anniversary of the Benghazi attacks Judicial Watch had obtained records and reported that a group of approximately 150 heavily armed Islamist militia members attacked the U.S. diplomatic mission. Subsequent to that Judicial Watch got ahold of droves of government files showing that then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and other Obama administration officials knew in real time that the Benghazi attackers were “armed extremists.”

Back in 2014 Judicial Watch reported that the U.S. military had a multitude of forces in the region surrounding Libya when terrorists attacked the Special Mission in Benghazi, but the order from the administration was to stand back as the violent ambush unfolded. A retired Air Force Lieutenant Colonel, Randall R. Schmidt, provided Judicial Watch with a detailed Navy map pointing the specific locations of all the forces—including dozens of destroyers and amphibious assault ships—that could have responded to the attack. Schmidt got the information after filing a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the Navy while he investigated how the military responded to the Benghazi massacre.

Last year Judicial Watch uncovered Department of Defense (DOD) documents that show the U.S. military was poised and ready to respond immediately and forcefully against terrorists in Benghazi. In an email to State Department leadership, then DOD Chief of Staff Jeremy Bash immediately offers “forces that could move to Benghazi” during the attack and reveals that “we have identified the forces that could move to Benghazi. They are spinning up as we speak.” Years earlier then-Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta explained the administration’s lack of military response to the nearly six-hour-long attack like this: “Time, distance, the lack of an adequate warning, events that moved very quickly on the ground prevented a more immediate response.”

In 2013 Judicial Watch obtained documents showing that the State Department hired an inexperienced and virtually unknown foreign company to protect American interests in the dangerous North African country long known to be infested with terrorists. The State Department paid the obscure and untested British firm, Blue Mountain Group, $794,264 for nearly 50,000 guard hours to secure the U.S. compound. British government sources said that even they were unfamiliar with Blue Mountain and in fact the Brits used a different—certainly more competent—security company to protect their mission in Libya.

It’s not like the State Department wasn’t aware of the eminent dangers in Benghazi. In fact, the agency knew for years that weak security at American embassies and consulates worldwide could result in a tragedy like Benghazi yet senior officials failed to act. Benghazi was simply one of a long string of security failures that date back more than a decade, according to a probe conducted by an independent panel of security and intelligence experts.

by -

The Clintons don’t just have a few skeletons in the closet, they have skeletons packed in every corner of the house.

Hillary’s already tricked a lot of the American public and has turned her email scandal into her own punch line –even blaming her own daughter. Don’t be fooled, the Clintons are a powerful machine whose history of back alley dealings is longer than the lifetime of most of Hillary’s voters.

The scapegoats the Clintons have employed, the hush money that has been paid, and the suspect deaths surrounding the Clintons for decades just scratch the surface. This list doesn’t even go into Whitewater, Benghazi, Humagate, or the virtual money laundering machine that is the Clinton Foundation.

Here are just a few that the Clintons probably hope you’d forget.


by -

What happened in Benghazi, Libya five years ago this September was tragic, and a new report says it could have been avoided.

But that isn’t the worst part.

The House Benghazi Committee released their 800-page report on what happened on September 11, 2011 when Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans died.

The report also goes on to discuss what is the worse part: the cover up. In this case, the old saying is true, the cover up is worse than the crime.

Although the report doesn’t specifically fault Hillary or Obama, it does outline their poor decisions during the crisis and their complicity in the cover up.

After the attack that killed four Americans, the Obama Administration pushed a false story to pass the blame. The entire raid on the compound and killing of Ambassador Stevens was blamed on a YouTube video.

I’ve seen a video on YouTube that claims Bernie Sanders is the Zodiac Killer, but I hope Bernie doesn’t blame the guy that made the video for not winning California in the primary.

The cover up was specifically designed to push off the blame for a couple of months. By the time the cover story was accepted and admitted as false, Obama already won his second term by beating Mitt Romney in the fall of 2011.

The timing of the cover up and the idea to create a false story was designed to help fool the people and make sure that Obama could win re-election. It is fraud in reality.

The decision was made to politicize the death of the Ambassador and three other brave Americans in order to win an election. The entire Obama Administration, including Hillary Clinton, lied to us in order to defer any outrage over Benghazi until after the election.

As much as Hillary shrugs off any Benghazi questions, the House report proves that she and the Obama Administration lied to America, and that is the worst part about the entire thing.

Who do you blame for Benghazi? Let us know in the comments below.

by -
Clinton Scandals

America knows Hillary Clinton is no saint–but, over the last three decades in the public spotlight, she’s weathered more scandals than any other politician in memory.

Now that she’s running for President, it’s only a matter of time before the skeletons in Hillary’s closet pop back out. Here’s the 21 most scandalous scandals that Hillary’s desperately hoping the American people forget by the time they vote in 2016…



by -

Democrats on the House Select Committee on Benghazi released the full transcript of the panel’s interview with Hillary Clinton’s onetime consigliare, Cheryl Mills.

Mills, who served as Hillary’s chief-of-staff in the State Department, was interviewed behind closed doors by the Benghazi Committee, one day before Hillary is set to testify herself.

Democrats claim that they leaked Mills’ entire interview because they didn’t want Republicans to be able to quote it out of context.

“Multiple Republican admissions over the past month have made clear to the American people what we have been witnessing firsthand inside the Select Committee for the past year — Republicans are spending millions of taxpayer dollars on a partisan campaign to damage Secretary Clinton’s bid for president,” said Rep. Elijah E. Cummings (D-Md.), one of the panel’s members.

He’s referring to Rep. Kevin McCarthy, the Republican Majority Leader, who went on the news to brag about how the Benghazi Committee has sunk Hillary’s poll numbers.

The uncomfortable claim sunk McCarthy’s bid for Speaker of the House and has sent Republicans scrambling to shore up the legitimacy of the committee. Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), who is the chair of the committee, has denied that the investigation is politically motivated.

The full transcript of Mills’ interview runs over 300 pages–but, while Republican investigators spent time grilling Mills over what Clinton knew the night of the attacks, her email server, and other alleged wrongdoings.

Mills apparently wanted the transcript to be released–which makes sense, because nothing in her testimony was especially incriminating, to either herself or Clinton.

Hillary is set to testify on Benghazi on Today.

by -

Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign is spiraling downward amid more key revelations Wednesday. Judge Andrew Napolitano, appearing on Sean Hannity’s Fox News show, disclosed that contents of Clinton’s e-mails from her private server included sensitive classified information.

Napolitano’s allegations are nuclear-grade political material with the serious possibility of ending Clinton’s campaign, and might even result in jail time. “I saw emails that have been revealed under the Freedom of Information Act,” said Napolitano. “And in them, she is discussing the location of French fighter jets during the NATO bombardment of Libya, how big the no fly zone is, where the no fly zones are, and are you ready for this? – the location of Ambassador Stevens, who of course was murdered, in Libya.”

This bombshell ties Clinton directly to the deaths in Benghazi and, as the Judge noted, Hillary can no longer deny that she had no classified information on her private server. In fact, investigators had already determined that 10% of the e-mails they’d examined as a random sample contained information that was classified at the time the e-mails were sent.

This new information comes on the heels of a New York Post report that the FBI’s probe of Mrs. Clinton’s e-mails is in fact a criminal investigation. Previous reports stated that the FBI investigation was merely a fact-finding mission.

“The DOJ [Department of Justice] and FBI can conduct civil investigations in very limited circumstances,” said the Post’s anonymous source. “In this case, a security violation would lead to criminal charges. Maybe DOJ is trying to protect her campaign.”

As we have previously reported, the Clintons as a couple have been extraordinarily lax in security during their time in the national spotlight. Bill Clinton had many of his salacious phone calls with Monica Lewinsky recorded by international intelligence agencies, and the Secret Service detail assigned to the couple routinely bends the rules for Bill’s paramours.

For her part, Hillary proved incapable of juggling her private e-mails and classified e-mails from legally mandated separate servers. Instead of using the secure White House servers, Mrs. Clinton maintained her own server in the Clintons’ Chappaqua home. Her personal server went down shortly after the Benghazi attacks, leaving her State Department aids in the dark as to her orders.

With experts of all stripes, including former CIA director Michael Morrell, pointing out the obvious vulnerability of a private server in a private house, Clinton appears to be facing a long uphill legal battle. As Napolitano pointed out: “What Mrs. Clinton did, by transferring and moving classified information through a non-classified venue, that’s a felony for each piece of information she passed through.”

While Bill earned a reputation as a Teflon president, Hillary seems increasingly to be a thoroughly sticky surface.

by -

Experts contend that Hillary Clinton broke the law as Secretary of State, by using only personal email addresses during her entire tenure.

Brianna Keiler, CNN’s senior political correspondent at their Washington, D.C., bureau, and a former White House correspondent, spelled out the possible consequences:

“. . .A lot of experts say that she [may have broken the law] by using only a personal account while she was Secretary of State. …That means she and her aides have tremendous discretion when it comes to the preservation or handing over of documents for certain things, say Benghazi or other issues where documents may be needed.”

“This is a very big deal,” she added.

In fact, Clinton has already been criticized for using personal email addresses to derail investigations, like the one occuring over her actions during the attacks on a U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi on September 11, 2012–which left four Americans dead, including U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens.

Just two months ago, Clinton’s advisors–to comply with record-keeping practices from the State Department–sorted through tens of thousands of her emails. But, because of the personal nature of these accounts, they were able to choose which ones to send to the State Department, meaning that possibly incriminating emails could be being hidden intentionally.

The latest information on Clinton’s controversial tenure at the Department of State comes as one of her 2008 senior advisor’s email account was hacked by a hacker calling himself “Guccifer.”

The hacking revealed that Clinton sent confidential documents from a personal email at “,” a domain name registered shortly after her confirmation as Secretary of State.

Hillary Clinton had no official government email address at any point during her four years in the State Department–which could cause major problems with safety and security, and, as Brianna Keiler noted, play a critical role in covering up possible scandals, like Benghazi.

Whether or not Clinton broke the rules or the law by not using a government email address, a developing scandal will hurt her carefully-orchestrated messaging in the short-term–and could even have lasting repercussions on her all-but-certain presidential campaign.

As Clinton becomes mired in possible scandal and her lock on the nomination becomes less certain, it becomes increasingly likely that another Democrat will challenge her in the presidential primaries in 2016.


Guarding Republicans

Over the weekend, the New York Times was slammed for running a piece where the news outlet apparently tried to cover up the motives...