‘Top Secret’ Intel Handled by At Least a Dozen of Hillary’s Top Aides
An
exclusive report by Fox News indicates Hillary Clinton was not the only
individual passing top secret classified intelligence through her
home-brewed email server. As many as twelve different email accounts saw
top secret intel.
Fox News reports:
At least a dozen email accounts handled the “top secret” intelligence that was found on Hillary Clinton’s server and recently deemed too damaging for national security to release, a U.S. government official close to the review told Fox News.The official said the accounts include not only Clinton’s but those of top aides – including Cheryl Mills, Huma Abedin, Jake Sullivan and Philippe Reines – as well as State Department Under Secretary for Management Patrick Kennedy and others.A second source not authorized to speak on the record said the number of accounts involved could be as high as 30 and reflects how the intelligence was broadly shared, replied to, and copied to individuals using the unsecured server.The State Department recently confirmed that the messages in question include the most sensitive kind of intelligence. On Jan. 29, Fox News first reported that some emails on Clinton’s server were too damaging to release in any form. The State Department subsequently announced that 22 “top secret” emails were being withheld in full; these were the messages being handled by more than a dozen accounts.
In September, I wrote:
Was there a concerted conspiracy to violate the law, particularly given the fact that Clinton opted for a private email on her person server? Who else knew classified information was being transmitted outside of government purview?If any of these suspicions are confirmed throughout the course of the FBI’s investigation, will aides then be offered legal concessions if they cooperate?What were once Clinton’s closest lackeys may end up being her downfall.
But I imagined one, maybe two were in on the let’s share classified intel via personal email account jig, not TWELVE.
Fox
also reported that contrary to what State Department Under Secretary
for Management Patrick Kennedy told the House Select Committee on
Benghazi, he was aware Hillary’s personal email use included work
related correspondence.
Kennedy recently told the House Benghazi Select Committee that he knew about Clinton’s personal email account from the beginning, but did not understand the “scope,” thinking it was for reaching husband Bill Clinton and their daughter Chelsea — and not for the exclusive handling of State Department business. Kennedy’s testimony appears to conflict with emails released through the Freedom of Information Act that show he routinely sent and received government business from the Clinton account.Fox News has asked the State Department to comment on the email accounts that shared the highly classified information, and how it was that Kennedy did not understand the “scope” of Clinton’s personal email being used for government business.A spokesman for the intelligence community inspector general, which has been reviewing the classification of the Clinton server emails, had no comment.
Earlier this month,
Judicial Watch obtained emails through the Freedom of Information Act
that showed the State Department working with Clinton on plans for a
hidden IT network that would bypass regular DOS protocols.
Judicial Watch announced today that it recently received records from the Department of State disclosing plans by senior State Department officials to set up a “stand-alone PC” so that Clinton could check her emails in an office “across the hall” through a separate, non-State Department computer network system. Referencing the special Clinton computer system, Under Secretary for Management Patrick F. Kennedy, writes Clinton Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills, “The stand-alone separate network PC is a great idea.” The emails are from January 23-24, 2009, a few days after Clinton was sworn in as Secretary of State.The new emails were obtained by Judicial Watch in response a court order in a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit for State Department records about Hillary Clinton’s separate email system (Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:15-cv-00689)).In the email chain, Lewis Lukens, former deputy assistant secretary of state and executive director of the secretariat, responds to a request from Mills by informing her, top Clinton aide Huma Abedin, and Kennedy that the new personal computer “in the secretary’s office” would be “connected to the internet (but not through our system).” Abedin responds, “We are hoping for that if possible.”The email exchange discussing plans to provide Clinton a separate computer to skirt the internal State Department computer network begins with a message from Mills to Lukens in which she requests Clinton being able to access her emails through “a non-DOS computer.” The email discusses how the stand-alone computer can be set up and why it is “a great idea’ and “the best solution:”
Hillary, liar extraordinaire
Started by ilona trommler
February 10, 2016 by John Myers
“A woman of undoubted talents who was a role model for many in her generation — is a congenital liar.” – The late syndicated columnist Will Safire, on Hillary Clinton, January 8, 1990.
If there are two things that Democratic presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton is really good at, it is raising money and, in equal measure, lying. Being so adept at both makes her the quintessential political candidate of the 21st Century.
Last week I wrote about better days, a walk that took us back to the 1950s when the United States was so economically dominant that half of the world’s GDP was American made. As soon as I sent it off to Personal Liberty Digest® I realized something; I would quickly be seeing comments to the effect that I was a cracker who longed for the 50s, not because the United States was an economic dynamo that allowed that generation to see a more lucrative future for their children, but because — some would say — my remarks reminisce back to a time when whitey kept the black man down.
Nonsense I say. I was born to an American father and through his citizenship I became a passport carrying U.S. citizen. I grew up in a small farm community and my only recollection of black people was in the arts and, particularly, athletics, where I idolized track and football stars, regardless of their color.
Moving my young family to Spokane, Washington in the 1980s it would be almost impossible to be a white racist from Western Canada. In the nearly 20 year there I met a single African American, not because I avoided blacks, but because there are so few people of brown and black skin that lived in Spokane.
I am pushing 60 and been with the same gal since we were 16. She can attest to this being the truth. Yet progressives will still maintain that I am lying. The same progressives that defend Hillary Clinton, a proven liar that liberals believe should be America’s next president. Most progressive Americans also embrace her husband, former president Bill Clinton, who it is argued does not to have a racist bone in his body. Yet Bill is not the anti-racist that millions of progressives want to believe in.
Only days before Clinton nominated Barack Obama for re-election, former President Bill Clinton told Kennedy: “A few years ago, this guy (President Obama) would have been carrying our bags.”
The racist remark was made to Kennedy as Bill tried to convince the late Senator to endorse his wife, Hillary, Senator Barrack Obama’s main rival for the Democratic nomination for the presidency in 2008.
The author of the article that reported on this is Ryan Lizza. He said he heard the remark from the renowned NBC newsman Tim Russert, who died in 2008.
Such racist reports regarding Bill Clinton are not isolated. A similar one attributed to Clinton is in a 2010 book, Game Change.
“A few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee,” said Clinton according John Heilemann and Mark Halperin, the authors.
True, much has changed since the 1950s, especially in how few people seem to care when a leading candidate for president can’t explain part of the past while running for office. Hillary Clinton and her relationship with Goldman Sachs come to mind.
The first time a reporter asked Hillary Clinton whether she would release the transcripts of her speeches to Goldman Sachs, for which she received a total of $675,000, she just laughed. The idea was silly, absurd, a joke — and not even worth consideration — to Clinton.
Two weeks ago, at Thursday night’s Democratic debate in New Hampshire, Clinton was asked again whether she would release the speeches; with moderator Chuck Todd relaying a question that had been sent in and then expanding the question, asking Clinton whether she would release the transcripts to every one of her paid speeches.
Another nuisance like Goldman Sachs means that at the very least Hillary is going to again obfuscate the truth and probably gloss over the details of the three speeches she gave to the Wall Street giant.
Clinton even laughed off the $675,000 she was paid by Goldman for her three speeches. Maybe so; it is less than three-quarters of a million dollars, which is chump change to the Clintons.
Journalist Lee Fang got a chance to sit down with candidate Clinton and pointed out that since 2001, Bill and Hillary Clinton have earned more than $115 million on the speaker circuit.... “This is really unprecedented in American history that you have a leading candidate of a major party enriching themselves (sic) personally from special interest groups that have been lobbying them and will be lobbying them if they do win the White House,” said Fang.
It’s not that unprecedented because the Mafia has been using such tactics for generations, as did Wall Street, as I learned from my experience as an account executive at the now defunct Bear Stearns.
Also during a New Hampshire town hall two weeks ago, Clinton claimed she took whatever Goldman Sachs was willing to pay her.
“That’s what they offered,” she said of the $675,000 she received for her three speeches.
Seriously, she took whatever Goldman paid, no questions asked? If that is the case, perhaps the CFO at Sachs should be fired for passing out $675,000 for three speeches by Hillary. That, she says, is what they offered. If so, then how much less would she have taken; perhaps $60,000 or maybe just $60 and hot lunch? Whatever the truth is, we are not likely to hear it from Hillary.
Something that should shock good Democrats; but from Whitewater to Benghazi, WND has compiled a list of Hillary’s 22 biggest scandals ever.
Twenty-two! It is a number so large it makes Richard M. Nixon look a rube at getting into trouble.
The good news for Hillary and the bad news for the nation is that despite all of Clinton’s troubles at telling the truth and with all her scandals, she is likely to be elected President. It seems liberals simply don’t care about Hillary’s honesty and integrity.
So unless one Republican candidate can put her or his act together, America is going to have a habitual liar as president. And America, especially these days, will be ill served by a president who constantly seems to feel that it is necessary to lie. And yet that seems that this is our future with our future Liar–in–Chief. Truth or dare — if Hillary is elected president how deleterious will she be to the Nation?
Yours in good times and bad,
–John Myers
Laura J Alcorn
No comments:
Post a Comment