Showing posts with label CIA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CIA. Show all posts

Tuesday, January 26, 2016

Hillary Clinton: I Did Not Know What the Email Issue Was All About

AP Photo/Patrick Semansky

by PATRICK HOWLEY25 Jan 2016433

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton claimed ignorance when asked about her private email scandal at Monday night’s CNN town hall.

“Yes, I think that’s a fair criticism,” Clinton said of the Des Moines Register’s point that she should have apologized for the scandal sooner. “I have no intention of doing anything other than find a convenient way” to communicate, Clinton said. “It turned out not to be so convenient.”

Clinton refused to call it an error in judgment.

“Maybe being faster, trying to figure out what all of this means,” Clinton said, when asked what she could have done differently, suggesting that she did not know what she was doing was wrong and potentially illegal.

“When you’re facing something like that, you’ve got to get the facts. And it takes time to get the facts,” Clinton said of her delayed response to the scandal.

“Some of them are frankly a little embarrassing,” Clinton said of her released emails. “You find out sometimes that maybe I’m not the best at technology, things like that.”

Despite Clinton’s appeals to ignorance, the FBI investigation into her email scandal is heating up. The case hinges on whether Clinton violated a provision of the Espionage Act of 1913.

The law (18 U.S. Code & 793 subsection f) makes clear that anyone who has materials “relating to the national defense” cannot lose or give them away. The law is broken if “through gross negligence permits [materials] to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed.”

The penalty? A fine, a prison term of up to ten years, or “both.”

Since the FBI seized Clinton’s emails in August, the scandal has haunted her campaign.

Senior White House adviser Valerie Jarrett threw Clinton under the bus, saying that the White House provided guidance to the State Department, telling employees to use official government email accounts.

Breitbart News first reported, based on high-level government sources, that of seven emails originally being analyzed by investigators to determine their classification status, two were deemed “Top Secret” and at least two were already classified when they were sent. Meaning, Clinton was sending and receiving classified information that she knew to be classified. The classifications were made by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

Our exclusive report galvanized our readers and other media outlets, quickly picking up more than 12,000 social media shares and 5,000 comments. The Clinton campaign could not find a suitable talking point on the issue. The campaign tried to claim that Clinton did not send emails that were classified “when originated.”

But Intelligence Community Inspector General I. Charles McCollough, now under attack by Team Clinton, confirmed, “IC classification officials reviewed two additional emails and judged that they contained classified State Department information when originated.”

The inspector general went on to make a comprehensive report, filed earlier this month. He found that “several dozen” emails had classified information in them. “These declarations cover several dozen emails containing classified information determined… to be at the confidential, secret and top secret/sap levels,” McCollough wrote in a letter to Congress. That’s right. A “sap” level is an even higher classification status than “top secret.”

Clinton’s server was highly vulnerable to attack, like the kind that occurred to multiple of her email contractors and could have happened to her when she opened a virus-infected email from her friend.

Breitbart News reported that Clinton’s server was operating on the same email network, and was housed in the same exact physical space, as the server for the Clinton Foundation, indicating that they were sharing a server. Additionally, that space was in New York City, not in the basement of Clinton’s Chappaqua, New York, home, as she claimed. Daughter Chelsea Clinton’s office was also using the email network.

Numerous Clinton Foundation employees used the clintonemail.com server for their own email addresses, which means that they were using email accounts that, if hacked, would have given any hacker complete access to Hillary Clinton’s State Department emails, as well.

Clinton’s server had an open webmail portal that gave potential hackers unrestricted access to Clinton’s personal information.

In fact, Clinton’s server went down at least three times during her tenure as Secretary of State, including weeks after the Benghazi terrorist attack. Clinton never even told her own IT Help Desk at the State Department that she was using a private server, keeping them in the dark about her secret activities.

Clinton even went so far as to hide the identity of the people running her private server, paying a company called Perfect Privacy, LLC. That company, based in Jacksonville, enters its own meaningless contact information into official Internet databases so that its clients’ identities will not be exposed.

Read More Stories About:

Big Government2016 Presidential Race,CNNHillary ClintonState DepartmentFBI,Clinton FoundationValerie JarrettHillary Clinton Email Scandalsecretary of state,CIAclintonemail.comClassified Information

Monday, January 18, 2016

CIA Spokesman Slams ‘13 Hours' as 'Distortion' of Benghazi Events


EXCELLENT REVIEW ON LAST NIGHTS SHOW LISTEN 24/7 ON Military Veteran Talk Radio

 iHeart.SmythRadio.com


Variety.com

A spokesman for the CIA is criticizing the Michael Bay movie “13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi” as a “distortion of the events and people who served in Benghazi that night.”

The spokesman, Ryan Trapani, wasquoted in an exclusive Washington Post story, which also features an interview with the CIA chief in Benghazi on Sept. 11, 2012, when Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others were killed in a siege of the diplomatic compound and attack on the CIA annex.

“No one will mistake this movie for a documentary,” Tripani told the Post. “It’s a distortion of the events and people who served in Benghazi that night. It’s shameful that, in order to highlight the heroism of some, those responsible for the movie felt the need to denigrate the courage of other Americans who served in harm’s way.”

Tripani did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

The CIA base chief, identified only as “Bob,” takes issue with a key point in the movie, when he tells the six contractors to “stand down” before responding to calls for help at the nearby diplomatic compound. The movie shows the contractors waiting for more than 20 minutes before bucking orders and leaving to try to save Stevens and others.

“There was never a stand-down order,” the CIA chief told the Post. “At no time did I ever second-guess that the team would depart.” The CIA chief told the Post that he spent about 20 minutes trying to enlist local security teams.

Congressional investigators also have concluded there was no “stand down” order.

The filmmakers and Mitchell Zuckoff, who along with the security contractors authored the book upon which it is based,have defended the movie and its portrayal of the events. It starts with a message, “This is a true story.”

Zuckoff told Variety on Thursday, “We have never heard anything from the CIA other than, ‘No [the stand-down order] didn’t happen.’ These guys [the security contractors] are putting their lives and their reputations on the line saying, ‘We were forced to wait,and the record shows it.'”

In interviews, the contractors have been adamant that the “stand down” order was issued. Earlier this week, Rep. Trey Gowdy(R-S.C.), chairman of the House Select Committee on Benghazi, said in an interview with the Boston Herald that when it comes to the stand down order, “there are witnesses who said there was one and there are witnesses who said there was not one… So the best I can do is lay out what the witnesses say and then you are going to have to make a determination as to who you believe is more credible.”

Update: Zuckoff issued a statement on Friday evening through Paramount, the distributor of “13 Hours.”

“The movie and book got it right. The CIA spokesman’s comments are predictable but not remotely credible.

“If you read “Bob’s” statements to the Washington Post, he would have us believe that he neither prevented the guys from leaving nor approved or ordered their departure. That’s nonsensical on its face and contradicted by facts and logic:

“– Two of our named sources, John Tiegen and Kris Paronto, heard Bob say those words, stand down, which they shared with Jack and D.B., who already understood that they were being held back. Our two key sources are on the record, with their names, while Bob remains shielded by anonymity.

“– Neither Bob nor the CIA disputes that a delay occurred and that the guys ultimately moved out without his authorization. That, logically, adds up to a simple conclusion: he held them back and then they left without his approval.

“– All evidence — and the CIA’s past statements — points to the conclusion (included in the movie and the book) that the delay was caused by a sincere but ultimately misguided attempt to coordinate with 17 Feb militiamen. But from the guys’ perspective, based on a collective century of military experience, that was a fool’s errand because 17 Feb had failed to help Tyrone during the airport standoff; 17 Feb was on a work stoppage for higher pay during the ambassador’s visit; and 17 Feb generally couldn’t be counted on in a live-fire situation with an American ambassador’s life at stake.

“– Bob’s statements, and the CIA’s claims, need to be seen through the lens of hindsight. It must be terrible for him to live with the fact that he delayed the departure, knowing that the deaths of Chris Stevens and Sean Smith were caused by smoke inhalation, which by definition is a function of time.

“– Through the CIA, Bob refused my requests to hear his side of the story during the writing of the book. He is only now coming forward because he doesn’t like his depiction.

“– Bob might have had a different sense of urgency from the guys in part because he did not accompany them to the Diplomatic Compound to assess the weak security situation prior to the ambassador’s visit (as depicted in the movie and the book).

“– Logic suggests that Bob’s career as an intelligence officer did not give him the same tactical experience or knowledge that the guys possessed, as depicted in the movie and the book.”

COMMENTS

Saturday, April 19, 2014

Did BLM Bury Bundy Cattle In Mass Grave? WARNING, GRAPHIC IMAGES

Did BLM Bury Bundy Cattle In Mass Grave? WARNING, GRAPHIC IMAGES

Did BLM Bury Bundy Cattle In Mass Grave? WARNING, GRAPHIC IMAGES

By: Annabelle Bamforth
132
Bunkerville, NEVADA, April 16, 2014– Ben Swann interviewed Ryan Bundy, son of Cliven Bundy, on his radio program Wednesday. Bundy spoke about the continuing battle over the grazing land, the next steps federal agents may take, and what has already taken place on the property so far.
Bundy told Swann that federal agents have fled the area and left a great deal of gear and equipment and that they aren’t likely to return any time soon for it. He also said that federal agents destroyed much of the grazing infrastructure on the land, including water lines, water tanks, troughs, corrals, and fences.

The damage didn’t stop at just destroying infrastructure: Bundy revealed that their cattle, about 40 or so, had been killed by federal agents and thrown into a mass grave.
“The mass grave that was dug was about 50 feet long, 18 feet wide, 10 feet deep, and about a third of the way filled back in with cattle.”
In these photographs provided to Benswann.com from the Bundy family, you can see that so called mass grave which was dug out with the use of a backhoe. Already inside that dirt grave you can see the body of at least one of the cattle.
10261680_10152078267466483_554103197_n
mass grave
mass grave
mass grave
mass grave
Bundy said that he could also see where the cattle had been killed out in the hills, in the corrals, and where they were shot down by helicopters.
Here you can see this bull was shot out in the open:
Cow shot and left to die
Cow shot and left to die
Bullet entry
Bullet entry
Another shot cow
Cow shot in corral