Hey Hillary, Did You Know Craig And Sheila Broke Up?

On March 30, 2017 Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley sent a letter to then-Secretary of State Rex Tillerson:

The Bureau of Diplomatic Security is the administrative body within the State Department that handles security clearance investigations, suspensions, and if needed, revocations. During the course of the Committee’s investigation into Secretary Clinton’s mishandling of classified information and the impact of her private server on the Freedom of Information Act, on February 16, 2016 then-Assistant Secretary of State for Diplomatic Security Greg Starr met with Committee staff. Assistant Director Starr informed my staff that Secretary Clinton’s security clearance, and those of her staff, had not been suspended or revoked because Diplomatic Security was waiting until the FBI concluded its criminal investigation before beginning an administrative review. On March 24, 2016, Committee staff met again with Mr. Starr and asked the same questions and received the same responses. I have repeatedly [emphasis mine] asked the State Department whether Secretary Clinton and her associates had their clearances suspended or revoked to which the Obama Administration refused to respond.[1] Recently, the State Department informed the Committee that six additional Secretary Clinton staff at State were designated as her research assistants which allowed them to retain their clearances after leaving the Department.

On July 5, 2016, Director Comey announced that “after a tremendous amount of work over the last year, the FBI is completing its investigation and referring the case to the Department of Justice for a prosecutive decision.”[2] Director Comey stated that Secretary Clinton and staff were “extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information” and “there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information…”[3] Director Comey said,

There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those with whom she was corresponding about the matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation.[4]

However, Director Comey did not recommend criminal prosecution. In announcing that decision, he also noted that “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.”[5]

It is unclear what steps the State Department has taken to impose administrative sanctions.

After two years Senator Grassley finally received a response from Charles S. Faulkner, Acting Assistant Secretary, Legislative Affairs for the State Department stating, ”At her request, former Secretary Clinton’s security clearance was administratively withdrawn on August 30, 2018.  On September 20, 2018 security clearances for Cheryl Mills, aaaaaaaa aaaaaaaa aaaaaaaa and aaa aaaa. As we previously informed the Committee, these individuals had been granted access to classified information through a request made by Secretary Clinton designating them as researchers, per E.O. 13526, Sec. 4.4(a)(2).

So, three-and-a-half years — or 1,279 days — after The New York Times exposed her use of a private email server to conduct official U.S. diplomatic business, she finally lost her security clearance.

In the months after the Times story, subsequent reporting disclosed that Clinton had sent and received more than 50,000 emails using the private server and private email addresses. When the government asked her for copies of the emails, she claimed an estimated 33,000 of them were personal and were thus not turned over to investigators.

Clinton may yet be required to submit to cross-examination on the email scandal under oath as a result of litigation originally filed by nonprofit government watchdog, Judicial Watch.

In August of this year, Press Secretary Sarah Sanders announced former CIA Director John Brennan’s security clearance had been revoked and also named other current and former officials President Trump would target with clearance removals. The list includes former FBI Director James Comey, former National Security Advisor Susan Rice, former FBI agent Peter Strzok, former FBI lawyer Lisa Page and Justice Department official Bruce Ohr, among others.

UPDATE:  Welcome Bad Blue Uncensored News readers.  Doug Ross honored us today with his linky-love and we thank him.

The Architect Of Her Fall

“You never see the entire script of political theater until long after the last scene has been acted out.”

Ten months after the 2016 election, The Ice Cube In Heels is viewed favorably by just 36 percent of Americans.  What’s more, only 25 percent and less than half of Democrats believe she was the Democrat Party’s best choice to be the presidential nominee.

Ten days ago, “Gam Gam” began her “What Happened” book tour─a retelling of her desperately uninspiring campaign.

Hillary isn’t merely in a state of denial; politically speaking she is dead but she doesn’t know it. There is no demand for her to run again. She has been handed her political retirement papers by the American people.

"Kids. Gam Gam thinks she's President of the United States. She may start saying weird things. Your job is to just go along with it." https://t.co/NvUFWA0N3j

— Stephen Miller (@redsteeze) September 20, 2017

She has no idea why Americans think “Clintonian” is another way of saying “dishonest.”

According to McClatchy DC Bureau, a federal appeals court will hear a case brought by Judicial Watch this Friday to make public draft indictments of Hillary Clinton from the Whitewater scandal in the 1990s.

Judicial Watch, a conservative watchdog group that files Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, wants copies of the documents that the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) has declined to release. It filed a FOIA request for the documents in March 2015 and in October 2015 the group sued for the 238 pages of responsive records.

According to Judicial Watch: “The National Archives argues that the documents should be kept secret, citing grand jury secrecy and Clinton’s personal privacy.”

But Judicial Watch says that because so much about the Whitewater case has already been made public, “there is no secrecy or privacy left to protect.”

The documents in question are alleged drafts of indictments written by Hickman Ewing, the chief deputy of Kenneth Starr, the independent counsel appointed to investigate Bill and Hillary Clinton’s alleged involvement in fraudulent real estate dealings. Although others were sentenced for their role in the matter, neither Clinton was ever prosecuted.

Ewing told investigators he drafted the indictments in April 1995. According to Judicial Watch, the documents pertain to allegations that Hillary Clinton provided false information and withheld information from those investigating Whitewater.

The government is sitting on at least 12 versions of the draft indictment of Mrs. Clinton, including one “listing overt acts.” From the public record, we know that the Whitewater case centered around whether Mrs. Clinton, while First Lady, lied to federal investigators about her role in the failed $200,000 dirt road real estate deal with a corrupt Arkansas savings and loan, Madison Guaranty and the Resolution Trust Corporation that cost taxpayers $65 million. Additionally, there were charges of bribery, corruption, cover-ups, suicide and murder.

James B. McDougal, who referred to himself as “Bill Clinton’s Brutus”, was a cooperating witness in the Whitewater investigation.  His accounts of business dealings with Bill and Hillary Rodham Clinton haunted them.  When McDougal died in prison in Fort Worth and with the suicide of Vince Foster four years earlier, they must have felt confident they had alluded the long arm of the law.  Not so fast.

Judicial Watch provided the court with a detailed list of grand jury and non-grand jury material that had already been made public. If there ever was a valid claim to grand jury secrecy in this closely scrutinized case, it is long gone.

 

Granny Clinton The Artful Dodger

Via The Associated Press — Hillary Clinton filed written responses this week to a conservative watchdog group's inquiries into the private and unauthorized email server she maintained when she was Secretary of State, but nearly every one of her answers included the phrase "Secretary Clinton objects to Interrogatory" or "Secretary Clinton does not recall."

Judicial Watch submitted 25 specific questions to the Democratic nominee on Aug. 30, 2016. Clinton and her legal team answered their inquiries point by point.

Clinton’s high-powered weasel lawyer, David Kendall, provided the Democratic presidential nominee's sworn responses. Her answers provided no new information. In her responses, Clinton used some variation of "does not recall" at least 21 times.

BREAKING: Hillary Clinton’s Sworn Answers To Judicial Watch Questions https://t.co/ZFFMjnQ5yi #HillaryForJail2016

— PoliticalClownParade (@PoliticalClownP) October 13, 2016

Read her answers to Judicial Watch’s questions here:

Copy of Clinton's written responses to each of Judicial Watch's questions
https://t.co/UBhjS1G91M

— PoliticalClownParade (@PoliticalClownP) October 14, 2016

From Body Bags To “Burn Bags”: What Difference, At This Point, Does It Make?

Huma Abedin, Hillary Clinton’s closest aide, was deposed by lawyers from Judicial Watch in connection with a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit into Clinton’s emails while she was at the State Department.  During the deposition Abedin divulged that Clinton destroyed at least some of her schedules.

“If there was a schedule that was created that was her Secretary of State daily schedule, a copy of that was then put in the burn bag, that…that certainly happened on…on more than one occasion,” Abedin said.

A lawyer for Judicial Watch asked, “And during your tenure at the State Department, were you aware of your obligation not to delete federal records or destroy federal records?”

Clinton has admitted to destroying “private personal emails” as Secretary of State. But Abedin’s admission that she used so-called “burn bags”—a container that material is placed in before it is destroyed—for some of her schedules is the first time anyone close to her has disclosed destroying public records.

From The New York Post:

“I spent eight years at the State Department and watched as four US ambassadors and two secretaries of state shared their daily schedules with a variety of State Department employees and US officials,” said Richard Grenell, former diplomat and US spokesman at the United Nations. 

“I’ve never seen anyone put their schedule in the burn bag—because every one of them had a state.gov email address and therefore their daily schedules became public records, as required by law,” Grenell added.

From the body bags containing the slain bodies of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans which laid on the tarmac at Benina Airport in Benghazi waiting for the flight home to be buried to the “burn bags” used to destroy any nexus between her public role and her private dealings involving the Clinton Foundation, it is painfully clear Clinton believes “what difference, at this point, does it make?”

Guns Are The Problem

It’s been a week since America witnessed the horrifying massacre in Orlando and what a week it’s been.

While the corpses of innocents lay strewn across the floor of the Pulse nightclub, our betters at The New York Times editorial board wasted no time in blaming “American politics” for the rampage.  Jumping to ridiculous conclusions, as is their wont, the board declared the assassin “was driven by hatred toward gays and lesbians.”

The World’s Most Dangerous Community Organizer who promised hope and change never seemed so small and hopeless as when he launched into his invective following a meeting of the National Security Council:

“For a while now, the main contribution of some of my friends on the other side of the aisle have made in the fight against ISIL is to criticize this administration and me for not using the phrase ‘radical Islam.’ That's the key, they tell us. We can't beat ISIL unless we call them radical Islamists.” 

“What exactly would using this label accomplish? What exactly would it change? Would it make ISIL less committed to trying to kill Americans? Would it bring in more allies? Is there a military strategy that is served by this?” 

“The answer is none of the above. Calling a threat by a different name does not make it go away. This is a political distraction.”

“Not once has an adviser of mine said, ‘Man, if we really use that phrase, we're going to turn this whole thing around.’ Not once.”

One day after the carnage an avalanche of evidence emerged which made it clear the Orlando killer was a jihadist—a radical Islamic terrorist—and yet he stubbornly clutches at pearls like gun control as he defiantly soft pedals links to Islam.

I remember well when ISIS burned alive in a cage Jordanian pilot First Lt. Moaz al-Kasasbeh while King Abdullah was visiting Washington.  The release of the horrifying video prompted the king to cut short his visit and return to Jordan amid revulsion and outrage for the grisly killing.

While the king’s plane was still in the air, he ordered the execution of two convicted terrorists with connections to the Islamic State.

In Syria, the government denounced the group that has been fighting it for months, but so did al-Qaeda fighters who oppose both the government and the Islamic State. In Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood and the Egyptian government for once agreed on something, the barbarity of the militant group for the way it murdered the Jordanian.  And in Cairo, Grand Imam Ahmed al-Tayeb, the head of the 1,000-year-old Al Azhar institute, was so angered that he called for the Islamic State’s extremists to be “killed, or crucified, or their hands and legs cut off.”

Contrast the king’s reaction to that of the current occupant of the Oval Office who took exactly 7 minutes to make his way from the podium to his golf cart following his Martha’s Vineyard vacation press conference to speak of James Foley’s beheading at the hands of ISIS terrorists.

He spent the rest of the afternoon on the links even as a firestorm of criticism erupted over what many saw as a callous indifference to the slaughter he had just condemned.

Use of the word “Islamophobia” is a potent weapon the Left uses as a cudgel to terminate rational discussion about radical Islamic terrorism.  On September 25, 2012 while addressing the 67th session of the United Nations General Assembly, The World’s Most Dangerous Community Organizer uttered these words:

“The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”

From Judicial Watch we learn that since 2009, at least seven Islamists (the Tsarnaevs, Muhammad, Zazi, Hassan, Abdulmutallab, Shahzad) have attempted to conduct attacks in the United States— undetected by either the law enforcement or intelligence communities. Likewise, Muslim political pressure and community groups have failed to identify, warn authorities or interdict these terrorists. In 2011, as the Obama administration was carrying out the training curricula purge demands of groups like CAIR, the Russian government was, without success, warning the FBI about Boston Bomber Tamerlan Tsarnaev.

Certain terms and—in basic Islamic history, as well as the language/publications of the terrorists themselves—have been removed from US government law enforcement and intelligence records. Why? Whose interests are served by not using accurate language to describe the actions of persons attacking US persons and property? Who wishes the historical record to be revised in such a way as to deny facts? Why would America’s leadership seek to ignore almost 1,400 years of history? If “sensitivity” to Islam is a concern, why would we seek to deny the teachings of Islam and its historical conquests—from medieval Spain to Indonesia, and beyond? Isn’t such a denial “insensitive”?

If government officials are forbidden to use terms such as jihad and Islamist, how can they ever hope to conduct the fact-driven analysis required to comprehend and act upon threat information?

The Judicial Watch report continues, “The Obama administration has also taken strong action to combat anything deemed insensitive to Muslims. Whatever the broader motives of the Obama political operatives, this desire to eliminate “insensitivity” is, in large part, rooted in fear—fear of terror attacks, violence, provocations, “days of rage,” burned consulates and protests. American leaders engage in self-censorship out of fear—pretending it is ‘tolerance” and “respect.’ They ironically proclaim that ‘intolerance’ is intolerable and must be eliminated. Consistent with this fear-based approach, in December 2011, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton hosted a three-day, closed-door, international ‘Istanbul Process’ conference on measures to combat religious ‘intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization’ saying our government would use “old-fashioned techniques of peer pressure and shaming” against Islamophobia.

Two months prior to Hillary’s “conference”, 57 Muslim groups sent a letter to the White House demanding the “purge” of all counterterrorism training materials and “re-education” of all FBI agents exposed to “Islamophobic” training.

In September of 2012 the Obama administration blamed attacks on the US Embassy in Cairo and the “Special Mission Compound” in Benghazi on a YouTube™ video.  That same month, Obama repeats the YouTube™ video lie to the UN General Assembly saying, “The future does not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”  His lies to the world emboldened the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) to push through a blasphemy resolution at the UN claiming that the video was part of a larger anti-Islam conspiracy.

The Obama administration, according to Judicial Watch, has been penetrated by Islamist influence operators, seeking to advance an ideological agenda completely at odds with our constitutional system. The penetration is, in many cases, by the Obama administration’s invitation. Some of the more public and controversial figures associated with the Obama administration have included:

Rashad Hussain—US Special Envoy to the Organization of Islamic Conference with connections to the Muslim Brotherhood.

Huma Abedin—Long-time personal aide to former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton

Daliah Mogahed—Advisor to the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships and an unapologetic defender of unindicted terrorist conspirator organizations such as  the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA).

Momamed Elibiary—An Islamic cleric named to the president’s Homeland Security Advisory Council with close ties to radical Islamist causes and a prime mover behind normalizing relations with domestic and foreign Islamist groups.  He reportedly leaked sensitive intelligence documents to a media outlet as part of the “Islamophobia influence campaign.”

Mohamed Magid—Executive Director of the All Dulles Area Muslim Society (ADAMS), outside Washington, DC and President of the ISNA, an unindicted terrorist conspirator organization. Magid was appointed by President Obama to the Department of Homeland Security’s Countering Violent Extremism Working Group. From that position, Magid was key in influencing and directing the purge of training materials and policies in the FBI and other federal agencies. Magid is a regular visitor to the White House, and extremely influential on Islamic issues in the Obama administration.

On September 20, 2015 Chuck Todd interviewed Donald Trump, Ben Carson and John Kasich on Meet The Press following the Republican Presidential Debate from the Reagan Presidential Library.

CHUCK TODD:  Let me wrap this up by finally dealing with what's been going on, Donald Trump, and a deal with a questioner that claimed that the president was Muslim. Let me ask you the question this way: Should a President's faith matter? Should your faith matter to voters? 

DR. BEN CARSON:  Well, I guess it depends on what that faith is. If it's inconsistent with the values and principles of America, then of course it should matter. But if it fits within the realm of America and consistent with the Constitution, no problem. 

CHUCK TODD:  So do you believe that Islam is consistent with the constitution? 

DR. BEN CARSON:  No, I don't, I do not. 

CHUCK TODD:  So you-- 

DR. BEN CARSON:  I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation. I absolutely would not agree with that.

State Department Finally Gives (Almost) Four Year Old Benghazi Phone Transcripts to Judicial Watch, and They're Filled With LIES

Judicial Watch(Washington, DC)– The Obama State Department last week admitted it withheld a key Benghazi email of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton from Judicial Watch since at least September 2014. If the State Department disclosed the email when first supposedly found, Clinton’s email server and her hidden emails would have been disclosed nearly two years ago, before Clinton authorized the alleged deletion of tens of thousands of emails.

It gets worse...Read the rest about the phone transcripts finally delivered that prove State Department and White House lying about Benghazi at Judicial Watch and Breitbart.

And The Nation Heaved A Collective Sigh Of Relief

Washington (CNN)—First Lady Michelle Obama is due to leave the White House when The World’s Most Dangerous Community Organizer’s reign of errors ends on January 20, 2017 and she said she has no intention of going back.

The wookiee’s announcement came while attending the South by Southwest (SXSW) Festival in Austin, Texas.  She made it clear she has no designs on the presidency saying, “I will not run for president.  No.  Nope.  Not going to do it.”

And the nation heaved a collective sigh of relief.

The current White House occupants have racked up 38—count ‘em—38 holidays, working vacations and “fun” trips according to a March 2015 published report by The Washington Examiner and are on par to take a total of 45 holidays before leaving office.

It is impossible to track the actual number of trips Moochelle, her daughters and her mother, Marian Robinson, have taken since the White House keeps that information secret from the media.  Yes, that’s right.  That’s been kept a secret.

It’s infuriating to think that the First Lady had the temerity to say that life in the White House had “some prison elements to it, but it’s a really nice prison.”  Bless her heart.

Last year alone there were trips to Hawaii, Aspen, Palm Springs, Los Angeles, Palm City, the United Kingdom, Italy, New York City and Martha’s Vineyard. In other years there were trips to Spain, Africa, China, and South America just to name a few destinations.

Judicial Watch compiled a list of First Family vacations and the sheer waste of taxpayer dollars through a series of Freedom of Information Act requests and lawsuits.  So far, Judicial Watch is reporting the total known expense to the American taxpayers for all Obama travel is now $70,880,035.71.

Do I see you doing a slow burn?  Yes, I think I do.

Obama seeks pay hike in post-presidency payments. Is MSM reporting on this and as outraged as Americans are? https://t.co/pqWsdBYriB

— PolitixGal (@PolitixGal) March 18, 2016

My Dearest Hillary, Your Fear Of Ridicule Reveals Your Cowardice

Judicial Watch, the watchdog group whose tenacious litigation in nearly 20 lawsuits led to the disclosure of former Secretary of State Clinton’s separate email system and her email scandal, has learned that five comedians who were performing at the popular Laugh Factory in Hollywood drew the ire of the Clinton campaign.

Their performances were posted on the Laugh Factory website and attempts were immediately made to censor it.

What the hell did they do?  They mocked The Ice Cube In Heels’ wardrobe, age, sexual orientation, the Monica Lewinsky scandal and the relationship (ahem) she has with her impeached husband.

Tiffany Haddish, the only female comedian in the video joked, "I would love if you become president, then you divorce Bill and you marry a bitch. Oh, shit!  That would fuck the world up!" Haddish continued, "I like the way you didn’t trip off Bill and Monica.  I feel like she was hitting that too on the side.”

Laugh Factory owner Jamie Masada told Judicial Watch that a Clinton staffer demanded to know the names and phone numbers of the comedians appearing in the video.  He summarily refused the Gestapo-like tactic and hung up on the staffer.

The famous French philosopher, in a letter to Etienne Noël Damilaville, wrote, “I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one:  Oh Lord, make my enemies ridiculous.  And God granted it.”

Hillary Clinton should be mocked hard and often and by people know how.  Take it away Tiffany.  You go, gurl!

“A Nation Of Sheep Will Beget A Government Of Wolves”

Regular readers of this blog may have noticed that blogging has been very light this week.  There’s a good reason for my absence.

I have been working at the local “Victory” office of North Carolina senatorial candidate Thom Tillis passing out bumper stickers, buttons and campaign yard signs, making phone calls and walking neighborhoods all in an effort to help him unseat incumbent Democrat Senator Kay Hagan.

North Carolina has 100 counties, of which 30 are blue.  I live in one of those blue counties.

On Wednesday, October 22nd, Thom made a campaign stop at Wingate University with Congressman Paul Ryan

Noting that circumstances are eerily similar to what the nation was facing in 1980—an energy crisis, rising gas prices, hostages being taken in the Middle East and Russia “going anywhere it wanted to go”—Tillis said that “Reagan created a vision of optimism and the emergence of America being great again.”

 

He said he is running because the students are owed the same opportunity to believe in America and the American Dream.

At one point Tillis referred to the debate on Tuesday night that Hagan did not participate in.  The “debate” featured an empty chair next to him.  Tillis said, “In fairness, I think it was her best performance yet.”

Early voting begins today in my state and I have been selected as a poll watcher. Judicial Watch discovered a scheme by Rev. Dr. William Barber to urge those attending the 71st Annual North Carolina NAACP Conference to “take unregistered voters to vote during the Early Voting period and to engage in get-out-the-vote activities on Election Day.”

NAACP’s leaders appear willing to risk the confusion and disenfranchisement of their own members in order to deceive a Court about common sense election integrity laws.

If the underhandedness of the North Carolina NAACP were not enough to cause alarm, The Winston-Salem Journal is reporting that 145 potential illegal voters appear on the State Board of Elections voting rolls.  Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) beneficiaries can obtain drivers licenses but are not legally permitted to vote.  SBOE believe more ineligible people may still remain on the voting rolls.

Jay DeLancy, Executive Director of the Voter Integrity Project wants to know how such a large number of non-U.S. citizens were ever registered to vote in the first place.”  Speaking to Watchdog. org DeLancy said, “There is clearly a system failure here and we need the Board of Elections and the DMV to help the Legislature and the public understand where the problem lies.”

My job as poll watcher will be to challenge any voter believed to be not qualified to vote in that precinct.  Judges will determine whether or not the challenge is valid.