Tag: Intelligence

Official: Hillary Put Lives At Risk By Keeping Highly Classified, Operational Intelligence On Unsecure Server

Official: Withheld Clinton Emails Contain ‘Operational’ Intel, Put Lives At Risk – Fox News

.

.
Highly classified Hillary Clinton emails that the intelligence community and State Department recently deemed too damaging to national security to release contain “operational intelligence” – and their presence on the unsecure, personal email system jeopardized “sources, methods and lives,” a U.S. government official who has reviewed the documents told Fox News.

The official, who was not authorized to speak on the record and was limited in discussing the contents because of their highly classified nature, was referring to the 22 “TOP SECRET” emails that the State Department announced Friday it could not release in any form, even with entire sections redacted.

The announcement fueled criticism of Clinton’s handling of highly sensitive information while secretary of state, even as the Clinton campaign continued to downplay the matter as the product of an interagency dispute over classification. But the U.S. government official’s description provides confirmation that the emails contained closely held government secrets. “Operational intelligence” can be real-time information about intelligence collection, sources and the movement of assets.

The official emphasized that the “TOP SECRET” documents were sent over an extended period of time – from shortly after the server’s 2009 installation until early 2013 when Clinton stepped down as secretary of state.

Separately, Rep. Mike Pompeo, R-Kan., who sits on the House intelligence committee, said the former secretary of state, senator, and Yale-trained lawyer had to know what she was dealing with.

“There is no way that someone, a senior government official who has been handling classified information for a good chunk of their adult life, could not have known that this information ought to be classified, whether it was marked or not,” he said. “Anyone with the capacity to read and an understanding of American national security, an 8th grade reading level or above, would understand that the release of this information or the potential breach of a non-secure system presented risk to American national security.”

Pompeo also suggested the military and intelligence communities have had to change operations, because the Clinton server could have been compromised by a third party.

“Anytime our national security team determines that there’s a potential breach, that is information that might potentially have fallen into the hands of the Iranians, or the Russians, or the Chinese, or just hackers, that they begin to operate in a manner that assumes that information has in fact gotten out,” Pompeo said.

On ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday, one day before the Iowa caucuses, Clinton claimed ignorance on the sensitivity of the materials and stressed that they weren’t marked.

“There is no classified marked information on those emails sent or received by me,” she said, adding that “Republicans are going to continue to use it [to] beat up on me.”

Clinton was pressed in the same ABC interview on her signed 2009 non-disclosure agreement which acknowledged that markings are irrelevant, undercutting her central explanation. The agreement states “classified information is marked or unmarked… including oral communications.”

Clinton pointed to her aides, saying: “When you receive information, of course, there has to be some markings, some indication that someone down the chain had thought that this was classified and that was not the case.”

But according to national security legal experts, security clearance holders are required to speak up when classified information is not in secure channels.

“Everybody who has a security clearance has an individual obligation to protect the information,” said national security attorney Edward MacMahon Jr., who represented former CIA officer Jeffrey Sterling in the high-profile leak investigation regarding a New York Times reporter. “Just because somebody sends it to you… you can’t just turn a blind eye and pretend it never happened and pretend it’s unclassified information.”

These rules, known as the Code of Federal Regulations, apply to U.S. government employees with security clearances and state there is an obligation to report any possible breach by both the sender and the receiver of the information. The rules state: “Any person who has knowledge that classified information has been or may have been lost, possibly compromised or disclosed to an unauthorized person shall immediately report the circumstances to an official designated for this purpose.”

The Clinton campaign is now calling for the 22 “TOP SECRET” emails to be released, but this is not entirely the State Department’s call since the intelligence came from other agencies, which have final say on classification and handling.

“The State Department has no authority to release those emails and I do think that Secretary Clinton most assuredly knows that,” Pompeo said.

Meanwhile, the release of other emails has revealed more about the high-level exchange of classified information on personal accounts. Among the latest batch of emails released by the State Department is an exchange between Clinton and then-Sen. John Kerry, now secretary of state. Sections are fully redacted, citing classified information – and both Kerry and Clinton were using unsecured, personal accounts.

Further, a 2009 email released to Judicial Watch after a federal lawsuit – and first reported by Fox News – suggests the State Department ‘s senior manager Patrick Kennedy was trying to make it easier for Clinton to check her personal email at work, writing to Clinton aide Cheryl Mills a “stand-alone separate network PC is… [one] great idea.”

“The emails show that the top administrator at the State Department, Patrick Kennedy, who is still there overseeing the response to all the inquiries about Hillary Clinton, was in on Hillary Clinton’s separate email network and system from the get-go,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said.

Kennedy is expected to testify this month before the Republican-led Benghazi Select Committee.

.
————————————————————————————————–
.

Related article:

.
Hillary Is Finally Asked About Non-Disclosure Agreement That Obliterates Her Classified Email Defense – Daily Caller

Hillary Clinton was finally asked on Sunday about a non-disclosure agreement she signed in Jan. 2009 which completely undermines the defense she uses to downplay the existence of classified information on her private email server. But as is often the case with the Democratic presidential candidate, she dodged the question and gave an inconsistent answer.

“You know, you’ve said many times that the emails were not marked classified,” said ABC News “This Week” host George Stephanopoulos.

“But the non-disclosure agreement you signed as secretary of state said that that really is not that relevant,” he continued.

He was referring to the “Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement” – or Standard Form 312 – that Clinton signed on Jan. 22, 2009, a day after taking over as secretary of state.

“It says classified information is marked or unmarked classified and that all of your training to treat all of that sensitively and should know the difference,” said Stephanopoulos, describing the document.

Clinton responded to Stephanopoulos but did not address the meat of his question. In fact, she appeared to reject the language of the SF-312, saying that “there has to be some markings” on classified information.

“I take classified information very seriously,” Clinton said. “You know, you can’t get information off the classified system in the State Department to put onto an unclassified system, no matter what that system is.”

“We were very specific about that and you – when you receive information, of course, there has to be some markings, some indication that someone down the chain had thought that this was classified and that was not the case.”

However, as the SF-312 makes clear, classified information does not have to be marked as such in order to require being handled as classified information. The document applies not just to physical documents and emails but also to oral communications.

Clinton revised her defense of the classified information on several occasions, as federal agencies release more damaging information about her home-brew email system.

“I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email. There is no classified materials,” she said in March, when news of her personal email account and server first broke.

In July, after the State Department began retroactively classifying many of Clinton’s emails, she revised her claim saying that she was “confident” that she “never sent nor received any information that was classified at the time it was sent or received.”

Days later, she changed her tune again, adopting the now-familiar claim that she did not send or receive information that was “marked” as such. That was after it was reported that the Intelligence Community’s inspector general had found highly classified emails which were classified when originated.

Clinton’s statement to Stephanopoulos about the inability to transfer “information off the classified system in the State Department to put onto an unclassified system” also fails to hold water.

Earlier this week, Fox News reported on a 2013 video showing Wendy Sherman, who served as Clinton’s Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, discussing how State Department officials often used Blackberries during overseas negotiations to send and receive information that “would never be on an unclassified system.”

WATCH:
.

.

.

Russian Intelligence: ISIS-Affiliated Terrorists Massing On Afghan Border For Invasion Of Central Asia

ISIS Jihadis Massing For Huge Invasion Of Central Asia: Russia Spies Discover Terror Plan – Daily Express

Russian intelligence officers claim Islamic State (ISIS) is preparing to take on Central Asia in its latest battle to take on the world in a frightening discovery.

.

.
Huge numbers of Islamist fighters are massing on Afghanistan’s northern border ready to march into neighbouring states, Russian intelligence officials have revealed.

Moscow’s spy chief Alexander Bortnikov warned fighters from the Taliban, many of whom have pledged allegiance to ISIS, were heavily armed and prepared to pass through porous border controls.

Speaking at a meeting of special services from the Commonwealth of Independent States, he warned: “The international community has now hit a new geopolitical challenge, an international criminal group in the name of the Islamic State.

“This project, which grew out of the ‘Arab Spring,’ has gained momentum thanks to the double standards of certain world regional powers by using ‘a terrorist battering ram’ to reach their own strategic goals in Asia and Africa.

“According to our estimates, citizens from more than 100 countries are currently fighting in the ranks of terrorist structures and the recruits constitute up to 40 percent of their forces.

“The escalation in tensions in Afghanistan has brought on serious dangers. There are numerous criminal groups included in the Taliban movement on the northern borders of this country right now. Some of them have also began operating under the Islamic State flag, which has led to a sharp rise in the threat of terrorists invading Central Asia.”

.

.
The jihadi hate group could be trying to open up a new front to the north of its territories after being pegged back in Syria by Russian airstrikes.

The invasion would be a swipe at Vladimir Puitin as it would take them into the former Soviet states of Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan, which are still beholden to Moscow.

They would also secure control of lucrative drug trafficking routes taking raw opium from Afghanistan to be sold as heroin on the streets of Russia and Europe.

ISIS has been looking to grow its presence in Asia and has active cells in India, Pakistan and Malaysia.

Putin earlier this month called the situation in Afghanistan “close to critical” and called on other ex-Soviet nations to be prepared to act together to repel a possible attack by ISIS.

The Islamic maniacs have been heavily battered by Western and Russian airstrikes, with some experts warning its economy is ailing and its command structure close to collapse.

The brutal jihadis have previously announced their intentions to take over the world and subject everyone to their warped ideology of Sharia Law.

.

.

50 Intelligence Analysts File Complaints Claiming ISIS Reports Are Politicized To Fit Obama Regime Narrative

American Spies Revolt Against Obama Admin; Say ISIS Reports Are Politicized To Fit Narrative!! – Soopermexican

.

.
The Daily Beast says that 50 spies have signed a document saying that the Obama administration is politicizing their reports on ISIS in order to fit their political narrative:

It’s being called a “revolt” by intelligence pros who are paid to give their honest assessment of the ISIS war – but are instead seeing their reports turned into happy talk.

More than 50 intelligence analysts working out of the U.S. military’s Central Command have formally complained that their reports on ISIS and al Qaeda’s branch in Syria were being inappropriately altered by senior officials, The Daily Beast has learned.

The complaints spurred the Pentagon’s inspector general to open an investigation into the alleged manipulation of intelligence. The fact that so many people complained suggests there are deep-rooted, systemic problems in how the U.S. military command charged with the war against the self-proclaimed Islamic State assesses intelligence.

“The cancer was within the senior level of the intelligence command,” one defense official said.

Two senior analysts at CENTCOM signed a written complaint sent to the Defense Department inspector general in July alleging that the reports, some of which were briefed to President Obama, portrayed the terror groups as weaker than the analysts believe they are. The reports were changed by CENTCOM higher-ups to adhere to the administration’s public line that the U.S. is winning the battle against ISIS and al Nusra, al Qaeda’s branch in Syria, the analysts claim.

This is pretty remarkable – it sounds so much like the spin the government handed down to the public about Vietnam.

More:

The accusations suggest that a large number of people tracking the inner workings of the terror groups think that their reports are being manipulated to fit a public narrative. The allegations echoed charges that political appointees and senior officials cherry-picked intelligence about Iraq’s supposed weapons program in 2002 and 2003.

The two signatories to the complaint were described as the ones formally lodging it, and the additional analysts are willing and able to back up the substance of the allegations with concrete examples.
.
Some of those CENTCOM analysts described the sizeable cadre of protesting analysts as a “revolt” by intelligence professionals who are paid to give their honest assessment, based on facts, and not to be influenced by national-level policy. The analysts have accused senior-level leaders, including the commander in charge of intelligence and his deputy in CENTCOM, of changing their analyses to be more in line with the Obama administration’s public contention that the fight against ISIS and al Qaeda is making progress. The analysts take a more pessimistic view about how military efforts to destroy the groups are going.

“Cherry-picked” intelligence? Sounds a lot like what they say about the Iraq War, doesn’t it? But what do you wanna bet that they’ll downplay this as much as possible?

.

.

Special Intelligence Review Confirms Hitlery Had Top Secret Nuke Information On Private Email Server

Second Review Says Classified Information Was In Hillary Clinton’s Email – New York Times

.

.
A special intelligence review of two emails that Hillary Rodham Clinton received as secretary of state on her personal account – including one about North Korea’s nuclear weapons program – has endorsed a finding by the inspector general for the intelligence agencies that the emails contained highly classified information when Mrs. Clinton received them, senior intelligence officials said.

Mrs. Clinton’s presidential campaign and the State Department disputed the inspector general’s finding last month and questioned whether the emails had been overclassified by an arbitrary process. But the special review – by the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency – concluded that the emails were “Top Secret,” the highest classification of government intelligence, when they were sent to Mrs. Clinton in 2009 and 2011.

On Monday, the Clinton campaign disagreed with the conclusion of the intelligence review and noted that agencies within the government often have different views of what should be considered classified.

Mrs. Clinton’s work-related emails from when she was secretary of state are slowly being released by the State Department.

“Our hope remains that these releases continue without being hampered by bureaucratic infighting among the intelligence community, and that the releases continue to be as inclusive and transparent as possible,” said Nick Merrill, a campaign spokesman.

John Kirby, the State Department spokesman, echoed Mr. Merrill.

“Classification is rarely a black and white question, and it is common for the State Department to engage internally and with our interagency partners to arrive at the appropriate decision,” he said in a statement. “Very often both the State Department and the intelligence community acquire information on the same matter through separate channels. Thus, there can be two or more separate reports and not all of them based on classified means. At this time, any conclusion about the classification of the documents in question would be premature.”

The intelligence review is the latest development in continuing reverberations over Mrs. Clinton’s use of only a private email account for her public business when she was secretary of state, which gave her some control over what was made public. She faced criticism when the account became known this year, and after deleting what she said were more than 31,000 personal messages turned over more than 30,000 work-related emails for the State Department to make public.

Mrs. Clinton has said that her emails contained no information that was marked classified – having classified information outside a secure government account is illegal – and that she is fully cooperating with an F.B.I. investigation to determine who at the State Department may have passed highly classified information from secure networks to her personal account. She herself is not a target of the investigation.

I. Charles McCullough III, the inspector general for the intelligence community, found the two emails containing what he determined was “Top Secret” information in the course of reviewing a sampling of 40 of Mrs. Clinton’s work-related emails for potential security breaches.

The senior intelligence officials briefed on the findings of the review spoke on the condition of anonymity because they did not want to jeopardize their access to sensitive information.

President Obama signed an executive order in December 2009 that defined “Top Secret” as information that if disclosed could “reasonably” be expected to cause “exceptionally grave damage to national security.”

In the months after the disclosure, Mrs. Clinton and her campaign were unequivocal in their stance that there was no classified information on it. But after it was revealed in August that the F.B.I. was investigating how classified materials were handled in connection with the account, Mrs. Clinton’s aides began saying that she never sent or received anything that was classified at the time.

.

.

Did Hitlery Sell Classified U.S. intelligence?

The Real Email Question: Did Hillary Clinton Sell US Secrets? – Red State

.

.
While the media is focusing your attention on the shiny object that is her email server, the real story is not being told. The circumstantial evidence indicates that Hillary Clinton, or members of her inner circle with her connivance, purloined highly classified US intelligence and either sold it, traded it, or used it for personal gain. This is not a conspiracy theory and it is not hyperbole. Stick with me for a moment.

The smokescreen

Via the AP:

On Monday, the inspector general for the 17 spy agencies that make up what is known as the intelligence community told Congress that two of 40 emails in a random sample of the 30,000 emails Clinton gave the State Department for review contained information deemed “Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information,” one of the government’s highest levels of classification.

The AP story, along with much of the rest of the media is trying to give two impressions:

First, the Clinton abstracted classifed information and included it in her emails, again AP

Clinton did not transmit the sensitive information herself, they said, and nothing in the emails she received makes clear reference to communications intercepts, confidential intelligence methods or any other form of sensitive sourcing.

Second, that there is all kinds of confusion about security classification

Nothing in the message is “lifted” from classified documents, the officials said, though they differed on where the information in it was sourced. Some said it improperly points back to highly classified material, while others countered that it was a classic case of what the government calls “parallel reporting” – different people knowing the same thing through different means.

We’ve all seen this behavior before with Clinton and her confederates in the media. Rose Law Firm records? Cattle futures? Whitewater? First it is “nothing to see here, move on.” Next it is “it is all so complicated, how could a somewhat addled old lady possibly keep it straight?”

According to the Intelligence Community IG this is what was found in the documents David Kendall turned over on the famous “thumb drive” :

.

.
Focus your attention on the last line. Now let’s see what this means let’s go to John Schindler of 20committee.com writing at The Daily Beast:

• TOP SECRET, as the name implies, is the highest official classification level in the U.S. government, defined as information whose unauthorized release “could cause exceptionally grave damage to national security or foreign relations.”

• SI refers to Special Intelligence, meaning it is information derived from intercepted communications, which is the business of the National Security Agency, America’s single biggest source of intelligence. They’re the guys who eavesdrop on phone calls, map who’s calling whom, and comb through emails. SI is a subset of what the intelligence community calls Sensitive Compartmented Information, or SCI. And these materials always require special handling and protection. They are to be kept in a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility, or SCIF, which is a special hardened room that is safe from both physical and electronic intrusion.

• TK refers to Talent Keyhole, which is an intelligence community caveat indicating that the classified material was obtained via satellite.

• NOFORN, as the name implies, means that the materials can only be shown to Americans, not to foreigners.

If you are interested in the permutations of security classifications at the TS level, this is a good primer.

The focus here is TK. This document the IC IG is talking about is satellite imagery. That is all it could have been. The Keyhole-series satellite is a recon satellite that produces imagery. It doesn’t produce anything else. What the IG found is not a passing reference to classified information or something State produced independently.

How did it get there?

The information we are talking about had to have originated on a highly secure network, one that was certified to handle SCIF-level information. (See page 43 for details) At some point it migrated from a SCIF to a highly secure network to Clinton’s email to her server. To get the document from the secure channel to the non-secure channel requires conscious effort. IT CANNOT HAPPEN BY ACCIDENT. This is evidenced by the fact that it appears someone stripped classifications from documents:

The claims come after the Clinton campaign stuck to the argument that the Democratic presidential candidate, while secretary of state, never dealt with emails that were “marked” classified at the time.

“Hillary only used her personal account for unclassified email. No information in her emails was marked classified at the time she sent or received them,” campaign Communications Director Jennifer Palmieri said in a statement to supporters Wednesday.

But a State Department official told Fox News that the intelligence community inspector general, who raised the most recent concerns about Clinton’s emails, made clear that at least one of those messages contained information that only could have come from the intelligence community.

“If so, they would have had to come in with all the appropriate classification markings,” the official said.

The official questioned whether someone, then, tampered with that message. “[S]omewhere between the point they came into the building and the time they reached HRC’s server, someone would have had to strip the classification markings from that information before it was transmitted to HRC’s personal email.”

This seems to be true because the Clinton campaign is pushing the “retroactive classification” story line and the IC IG implies that the images have been properly marked for their report which implies they were not properly marked when recovered.

Say what?

Now we have a situation where a person or persons downloaded highly classified images in a SCIF environment, or scanned hard copies of documents in a SCIF (cleared persons can bring electronic devices into a SCIF and there are dozens of scanner apps for smartphones and tablets. Clinton and her clique would undoubtedly be cleared.), ported those electronic files over to a non-secure computer and emailed them to someone using Hillary Clinton’s server. These particular images were emailed by or to Hillary Clinton.

If you want to stop now just remember this:

The information the IC IG is talking about a) could not have accidentally ended up in Clinton’s email, b) it was altered to remove security classifications, and c) there has to be a reason someone selected this information, from among the wealth of top secret information Clinton had access to, to steal.

Why would anyone do that?

Now that we’ve dismissed the idea that the classified material was classified post facto, or it was mentioned in passing and accidentally ended up in Hillary’s email, the question becomes one of a) why anyone would remove highly classified material from a secure environment, b) strip the security markings on highly classified satellite imagery and c) send it via un-secure email. These answers go to motive and state of mind. They wanted to sanitize the imagery as much as possible so no casual observer could tell it was classified (which asks another why? question which we will get to) and it was sent via un-secure email because the intended recipient did not have SCIF access.

What we know for certain is that Clinton could not have been contemplating saving this information for use in her memoirs because her memoirs would require State and Intelligence review and someone would have identified the imagery as TS//TK.

The beginning of a trail…

We know that Hillary Clinton relied to some degree on intelligence briefings sent to her by her loyalist and vicious attack poodle, Sid Blumenthal. This arrangement came to light when Blumethal’s AOL account (I am not making that up) was accessed by a Romanian hacker nicknamed ‘Guccifer.’ Via Politico:

Sidney Blumenthal did not write or know the source of any of the Libya intelligence he passed on to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the top Clinton ally told investigators on the House Select Committee on Benghazi Tuesday in a closed-door deposition.

Blumenthal, subpoenaed by the committee, also did not verify any of the intelligence he forwarded to the nation’s top diplomat. Instead, Blumenthal was copying and pasting memos from Tyler Drumheller, a former CIA operative who was looking into a Libya-related business venture, and sending them to Clinton, two people familiar with his testimony told POLITICO.

“One of the folks providing her the largest volume of information was simply and merely a conduit of someone who… may have had business interest in Libya,” said panel Chairman Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) 80% (R-S.C.) at the end of a nearly nine-hour interview. “We have a CIA, so why would you not rely on your own vetted source intelligence agency? In this case, there was no vetting, no analysis of credibility whatsoever.”

And:

In her early months in office, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was in contact with unofficial adviser Sidney Blumenthal more often and on a wider range of topics than was previously known, a set of about 3,000 Clinton emails released Tuesday night by the State Department revealed.

While Blumenthal’s role as a provider of off-the-books intelligence reports on Libya has stirred controversy, the newly disclosed emails show he also acted as an intermediary with officials involved in the Northern Ireland peace process and shared advice with Clinton on issues from Iran to British politics to how to blame China for the breakdown of global climate talks.

Blumenthal claims he didn’t actually know anything, that he was only an intermediary passing information from a former CIA official, Iraq War critic (I know, those are redundant terms) and would-be political player named Tyler Drumheller.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had access to the world’s top intelligence agencies and their resources, but at the most turbulent moment of her tenure as the nation’s top diplomat, she received a stream of intelligence on Libya and the Benghazi attack by a former CIA official working outside the government, sources said.

Since his retirement, Drumheller has also contributed to various Democratic politicians, according to records maintained by the Center for Responsive Politics. In 2005, he contributed a combined $800 to the Senate campaigns of former Sens. Mark Pryor and Mary Landrieu, and donated $500 to Rep. Bill Pascrell, D-New Jersey, in 2011, the Center for Responsive Politics said.

And…

We know at least two Clinton cronies followed her to State: Cheryl Mills (Chief of Staff) and sweet Huma Abedin (Deputy Chief of Staff). They also had Clinton foundation email addresses. Both Mills and Abedin held the status of ‘special employees’ which allowed them to hold other jobs while working at State. Mills was on the board of NYU’s Abu Dhabi campus, general counsel for NYU, and on the payroll of the Clinton Foundation. Abedin worked for an investment consultancy called Teneo Holdings and was also on the payroll of the Clinton Foundation. We don’t know their security access but it would be safe to say they saw everything Hillary did.

What happened to the imagery?

Either Clinton sent top secret material via her private email to herself to archive for grins or the Clinton server was only a way station on its way somewhere else. Simply keeping the images for some future use doesn’t make sense to me as it is a high risk-low payoff action. The more likely scenario is that something was done with the images, something that benefited one or more Clintons.

A logical route would be Clinton gets info from Blumenthal who gets info from Drumheller. Clinton sends info to Blumenthal who sends info to Drumheller.

But if Blumenthal, or someone like him, handled the outgoing classified information did they also act as a bag man, collecting money for the imagery?

What did Drumheller, or someone like him, get for his efforts if he received the imagery? Was he merely a bit player at the fringe of Democrat politics who was releasing his inner Walter Mitty by sending bulls*** intel analyses to Hillary? Maybe in hopes of become Director of Central Intelligence after her coronation? Did he get paid by Clinton? Or was the operation a quid pro quo where he received classified materials that he could sell to others and curry favor and impress others to gain access to other political players? Did someone in Abu Dhabi get the images? Or did they end up at Teneo Holdings to help bolster some investment decision? One of these answers is better than the others.

…or it could have been run of the mill Clinton corruption

Alternatively, once could ask were these images and other information used to sweeten the pot for various kleptocrats and dictators who paid extortionate amounts of money for speeches by Bill Clinton? Suppose a Third World dictator… let’s imagine in Central Asia… paid Bill Clinton… let’s just throw a number out there… $500,000 for a speech. Suppose as part of the deal that Clinton client also received satellite imagery or signal intercepts that increased their life expectancy. Is there any evidence of this? No. But neither is there any proof it didn’t happen. As we learned during the administration of GHW Bush, it is not the quality of the evidence that requires an investigation, rather it is the seriousness of the allegation.

Searching for a fall guy

Clinton’s story is “I didn’t know squat.” That is as plausible as Obama’s Justice Department wants to make it. But either someone gave her the images and she sent them or they had log in access to her email and sent them for her. Her only real defense, given her access to classified material and a Keyhole satellite image would have been instantly recognizable, is that someone used her email to send it.

But how did they get into Hillary’s email? Did Hillary handle the images? I don’t think she had the technical chops – and is way too smart – to scan/download satellite imagery, strip the security classification, and email them. Did Cheryl Mills, an attorney, do this? Lawyers do stupid stuff all the time but usually it has the patina of cleverness attached. That leaves Huma.

With no security classification, Sid Blumenthal has plausible deniablity. He can say he got the images (this is assuming that at some point he did receive them) but assumed they were unclassified.

This makes one logical fall guy Tyler Drumheller. Drumheller would instantly recognize the Keyhole imagery so stripping the security classification wouldn’t muddy the water much for him if it ever went to court. But anyone he gave/showed the imagery to would not necessarily know the source which could provide some degree of cover. Unfortunately, we will never know Mr. Drumheller’s true role in this as he visited Fort Marcy Park died of pancreatic cancer on August 2, 2015.

.

.

National Intelligence Director Contradicts Traitor John Kerry Less Than 24 Hours After His Congressional Testimony

Figures. James Clapper Contradicts John Kerry Less Than 24 Hrs After His Testimony Before Congress – Gateway Pundit

Director of National Intelligence James Clapper completely contradicts John Kerry less than 24 hours after his testimony before Congress.

On Wednesday Obama Secretary of State John Kerry told Congress:

Our citizens, our world today is actually, despite ISIL, despite the visible killings that you see and how horrific they are, we are actually living in a period of less daily threat to Americans and to people in the world than normally – less deaths, less violent deaths today than through the last century.

On Thursday Obama Director of National Intelligence James Clapper told Congress:

“When the final accounting is done. 2014 will be the most lethal year in global terrorism in the 45 years such data has been compiled. About half of all attacks including fatalities in 2014 occurred in just three countries, Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan.”

.

.
Do these people have any idea what they’re doing?

.

.

Incompetence Update: President Asshat Has Missed Over Half Of His Second-Term Daily Intelligence Briefings

Report: Obama Has Missed over Half His Second-Term Daily Intel Briefings – Big Peace

A new Government Accountability Institute (GAI) report reveals that President Barack Obama has attended only 42.1% of his daily intelligence briefings (known officially as the Presidential Daily Brief, or PDB) in the 2,079 days of his presidency through September 29, 2014.

.

.
The GAI report also included a breakdown of Obama’s PDB attendance record between terms; he attended 42.4% of his PDBs in his first term and 41.3% in his second.

The GAI’s alarming findings come on the heels of Obama’s 60 Minutes comments on Sunday, wherein the president laid the blame for the Islamic State’s (ISIS) rapid rise squarely at the feet of his Director of National Intelligence James Clapper.

“I think our head of the intelligence community, Jim Clapper, has acknowledged that I think they underestimated what had been taking place in Syria,” said Obama.

According to Daily Beast reporter Eli Lake, members of the Defense establishment were “flabbergasted” by Obama’s attempt to shift blame.

“Either the president doesn’t read the intelligence he’s getting or he’s bullshitting,” a former senior Pentagon official “who worked closely on the threat posed by Sunni jihadists in Syria and Iraq” told the Daily Beast.

On Monday, others in the intelligence community similarly blasted Obama and said he’s shown longstanding disinterest in receiving live, in-person PDBs that allow the Commander-in-Chief the chance for critical followup, feedback, questions, and the challenging of flawed intelligence assumptions.

“It’s pretty well-known that the president hasn’t taken in-person intelligence briefings with any regularity since the early days of 2009,” an Obama national security staffer told the Daily Mail on Monday. “He gets them in writing.”

The Obama security staffer said the president’s PDBs have contained detailed threat warnings about the Islamic State dating back to before the 2012 presidential election.

“Unless someone very senior has been shredding the president’s daily briefings and telling him that the dog ate them, highly accurate predictions about ISIL have been showing up in the Oval Office since before the 2012 election,” the Obama security staffer told the Daily Mail.

This is not the first time questions have been raised about Obama’s lack of engagement and interest in receiving in-person daily intelligence briefings. On September 10, 2012, the GAI released a similar report showing that Obama had attended less than half (43.8%) of his daily intelligence briefings up to that point. When Washington Post columnist Marc Thiessen mentioned the GAI’s findings in his column, then-White House Press Secretary Jay Carney dubbed the findings “hilarious.” The very next day, U.S. Libyan Ambassador Chris Stevens and three American staff members were murdered in Benghazi. As Breitbart News reported at the time, the White House’s very own presidential calendar revealed Obama had not received his daily intel briefing in the five consecutive days leading up to the Benghazi attacks.

Ultimately, as ABC News reported, the White House did not directly dispute the GAI’s numbers but instead said Obama prefers to read his PDB on his iPad instead of receiving the all-important live, in-person briefings.

Now, with ISIS controlling over 35,000 square miles of territory in its widening caliphate in Iraq and Syria, and with Obama pointing fingers at his own Director of National Intelligence James Clapper for the rise of ISIS, the question remains whether a 42% attendance record on daily intelligence briefings is good enough for most Americans.

.

.

Leaked Intelligence Report On Border Crisis Shreds Narrative From Obama Regime And Leftist Media

Leaked Border Crisis Intel Shreds Narrative From Media And Obama Admin – Breitbart Texas

.

.
An elite, law-enforcement sensitive El Paso Intelligence Center (EPIC) intel report from July 7, 2014 was leaked to Breitbart Texas and reveals that homicide rates in Central America suggest violence is likely not the primary cause of the surge of thousands of unaccompanied minors and incomplete family units illegally entering the United States.

The EPIC report indicates that the belief among the illegal immigrants that they would receive permisos and be allowed to stay was the driving factor in their choices to come to the United States and that the crisis will continue until ‘misperceptions’ about U.S. immigration benefits were no longer prevalent . The report also states that the migrants cited Univision and other other outlets as having shaped their views on U.S. immigration policy. Another implication of the report is that family members already in the U.S. are encouraging the minors to come and organizing the travel with smugglers. EPIC is a widely respected intelligence analysis group and was initially staffed by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA).

According to the official DEA website, EPIC now contains representatives from a host of law enforcement agencies. The DEA states:

Agencies currently represented at EPIC include the Drug Enforcement Administration; Department of Homeland Security; Customs & Border Protection; Immigration & Customs Enforcement; U.S. Coast Guard; Federal Bureau of Investigation; Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives; U.S. Marshals Service; Department of Transportation; Internal Revenue Service; U.S. Department of the Interior; National Geospatial – Intelligence Agency; U.S. Department of Defense/IC; Joint Task Force – North; Joint Interagency Task Force – South; Texas Department of Public Safety; Texas Air National Guard; National Guard Counter Narcotics Bureau; Department of State; Bureau of Indian Affairs; Union Pacific Railroad Police; Kansas City Southern Railroad Police; El Paso Police Department; and the El Paso County Sheriff’s Office.

The leaked EPIC report discusses the motivational factors of the illegal immigrants in their choice to migrate to the United States:

(U//LES) In late May, the U.S. Border Patrol interviewed unaccompanied children (UAC) and migrant families apprehended in the Rio Grande Valley. Of the 230 total migrants interviewed, 219 cited the primary reason for migrating to the United States was the perception of U.S. immigration laws granting free passes or permisos to UAC and adult female OTMs traveling with minors. Migrants indicated that knowledge of permisos was widespread across Central America due to word of mouth, local, and international media messaging – prompting many to depart for the United States within 30 days of becoming aware of these perceived benefits, according to the same reporting.

(U//LES) A majority of migrants interviewed also noted that they had encountered family units, consisting of a mother and child under the age of 18 during their journey to the United States and that the families had indicated they planned to surrender to U.S. authorities because they were informed that they would likely be released.

The EPIC report discusses the lack of correlation between violence rates in Central America and the current border crisis:

(U//LES) EPIC assesses homicide trends and migrant interviews suggest violence is likely not the principal factor driving the increase in UAC migration. While CBP data from early fiscal year 2011 indicates a steady increase in OTM and UAC migration, United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) statistics – within this same timeframe – show a decline in per capita homicide rates in these three countries; El Salvador saw the sharpest decline, followed by Honduras and Guatemala, respectively.

.

.

.

.
The EPIC report discusses the media outlets that the illegal immigrants claimed shaped their perceptions about U.S. policies towards illegal immigrants of this nature:

…Migrants cited Univision, Primer Impacto, Al Rojo Vivo and several Honduran television news outlets for helping shape their perception of U.S. immigration policy.

(U) Although EPIC lacks reliable reporting of Central American newspapers broadcasting the perceived benefits of U.S. immigration policies, several U.S. media outlets since June 2014 have identified Central American newspapers that have enticed minors to travel to the United States. For example, Honduran and El Salvadoran press have reportedly advertised the DACA policy, accommodations for detained UAC, and the promise of reunification with family members in the United States.

The EPIC report discusses the illegal immigrants’ family members already living in the U.S. as encouraging the minors to illegally enter the nation and setting up the travel arrangements with smugglers:

(U//LES) U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) also notes that a large number of migrants interviewed claimed family members in the United States encouraged their travel because the U.S. government would cease issuing permisos after June 2014. (U//LES) U.S. Border Patrol officials report that the majority of migrants interviewed in late May indicated that they made arrangements with smugglers in their respective countries through the assistance of family members and friends in the United States.

The EPIC report states that near-term slowdown in the crisis is unlikely and that traditional migration factors will likely continue to fuel the wave of illegal immigration. It states that the crisis will continue until the migrants’ “misperceptions” about U.S. immigration benefits are changed:

(U//FOUO) EPIC assesses that UAC flow to the border will remain elevated until migrants’ misperceptions about US immigration benefits are changed. We further judge that this process could take the remainder of 2014 given the time needed for bi-lateral coordination efforts – such as information and enforcement campaigns in Mexico and Central America – to take hold. Nonetheless, traditional underlying immigration factors, such as family reunification and poor socioeconomic conditions, will continue to drive alien flow – including minors – from Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador.

Breitbart Texas provides a redacted version of the leaked intel report here. All redactions were made by Breitbart Texas. The redactions are limited to source material citations, names, and contact information.

.

.

Intelligence Committee Chairman Poised To Recall Alleged Lying Sack O’ Crap Ex-CIA Chief Over Benghazi Testimony

Intel Committee Chairman Poised To Recall Ex-CIA Chief Morell Over Benghazi Testimony, Weighing Same For Petraeus – Fox News

Republican allegations that former CIA Acting Director Mike Morell misled Congress over the White House’s role in crafting the flawed Benghazi “talking points” took a dramatic turn Thursday, with the Republican chairman of the House Intelligence Committee telling Fox News it’s likely Morell will be recalled to testify.

.

.
Investigators also are reviewing the testimony of former CIA Director David Petraeus, Morell’s old boss, to assess whether he should be recalled as well.

“We are having some transcript reviews. We’ve been continually doing that through the committee,” Chairman Mike Rogers, R-Mich., told Fox News. “We’re looking at Director Petraeus’ transcripts and reviews – looking at what information we have now available. Sometimes that second interview can be equally important and it is likely we will have Director Morell up to testify before the committee.”

The debate continues to focus on why the talking points did not reflect the best available intelligence, and what influence the administration brought to bear on the flawed public narrative of the attack in the days immediately following Sept. 11, 2012 – that narrative initially claimed the attacks sprung out of protests over an anti-Islam film.

Among the allegations, Republicans on the Senate Intelligence Committee said in a January 2014 Benghazi report that Morell insisted the talking points were sent to the White House for informational purposes, and not for their input – but e-mails, later released by the administration, showed otherwise.

In response to Rogers’ comments, Morell said in an email to Fox News, “I sent him a letter this afternoon saying that I would very much welcome an invitation to testify in open session before the Committee on Benghazi.”

Since retiring from the CIA, Morell has taken on high-profile assignments for the administration, including the NSA review panel and the President’s Intelligence Advisory Board. He is now a paid TV commentator for CBS News, has a book deal, and works for Beacon Global Strategies, whose founder Philippe Reines has been described by the New York Times magazine as Hillary Clinton’s “principal gatekeeper.”

Asked if he was leaving the door open for recalling Petraeus, Rogers said: “Absolutely, We’re not going to take any lead off the table. And if there’s some clarifying questions that we can get done that leads to a conclusion, an appropriate conclusion and the finding of fault in this particular event we’ll – everybody is subject to coming back to the committee.”

Immediately after the attack, then-Director Petraeus rankled some lawmakers when they say he characterized Benghazi as consistent with a flash mob, and downplayed the skill needed to fire mortars with deadly accuracy on the CIA annex. CIA personnel on the ground in Benghazi recently testified that five mortars rained down on the annex in under a minute, and three were direct hits, killing former Navy SEALs Ty Woods and Glen Doherty, who were defending the compound. A source close to Petraeus insisted at the time that he knew it was terrorism from day one.

No determination has been made but Rogers said if witnesses are recalled, his preference is for public testimony. “I would prefer to have an open session. I think that would be, I think enlightening to everybody who has concerns about what happened on that September 11th day that took the lives of our Americans.”

Also Thursday, three U.S. senators who met with Morell and then-U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice in late 2012 took to the Senate floor, calling for Rice to testify as well. Rice, who stirred controversy in 2012 for blaming the attack on protests, recently told NBC News the talking points were based on the best-available intelligence. Sens. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H.; John McCain, R-Ariz.; and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., want her back on the Hill.

“We now have facts that she was absolutely wrong. Of course, the question also remains what in the world was Susan Rice doing speaking that morning?” McCain said.

Ayotte added, “We need to have her testimony before the Congress to get to the bottom of why these representations were made. Mr. Morell needs to be brought before the Congress and ultimately we need a select committee.”

Graham said there was ample intelligence in the days after the attack that there was no protest, citing eyewitness accounts from U.S. personnel on the ground in Benghazi. “Why didn’t the CIA pick up the phone and call the FBI agents interviewing the Benghazi survivors in Germany on the 15th, 16th and 17th of September, days after the attack?”

In a November 2012 meeting, Graham said Morell accused the FBI of refusing to share those accounts. “He said – Mike Morell – the FBI basically would not share that information because it is an ongoing criminal investigation. My mouth dropped. When the meeting was over, I ran back to my office. I called the FBI… They also denied that their agents ever withheld information from the CIA.”

In an earlier email to Fox News on Feb. 13, Morell said: “I stand behind what I have said to you and testified to Congress about the talking point issue. Neither the Agency, the analysts, nor I cooked the books in any way.”

When asked specific questions on Feb. 20 about Republican allegations he provided misleading testimony, Morell did not answer the questions, instead referring Fox News to the CIA public affairs office.

Spokesman Dean Boyd provided this statement to Fox News on Feb. 20: “As we have said multiple times, the talking points on Benghazi were written, upon a request from Congress, so that members of Congress could say something preliminary and in an unclassified forum about the attacks. As former CIA Deputy Director Michael Morell has stated publicly time and again, the talking points were never meant to be definitive and, in fact, the points themselves noted that the initial assessment may change. He has addressed his role in the talking points numerous times. We don’t have anything further to add to the large body of detail on the talking points that is already in the public domain.”

Fox News also asked Petraeus if he would appear voluntarily if recalled by the House Intelligence Committee, and there was no immediate response.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

British Intelligence Specialist: Obama Born In Kenya; CIA, American Politicians Knew It Before ’08 Election



(see unedited version below)
.

Michael Shrimpton Résumé:

Michael Shrimpton is a barrister, called to the Bar in London 1983 and is a specialist in National Security and Constitutional Law, Strategic Intelligence and Counter-Terrorism. He has wide ranging connections both in Western Intelligence agencies and amongst ex-Soviet Bloc agencies. Michael has earned respect in the intelligence community for his analysis of previously unacknowledged post WWII covert operations against the West by organisations based in Washington, Munich, Paris and Brussels and which are continuing in post 9-11.

He is Adjunct Professor of intelligence Studies, Department of National Security, Intelligence and Space Studies, American Military University, teaching intelligence subjects at Masters Degree level to inter alia serving intelligence officers. He has represented US and Israeli intelligence officers in law and has briefed staffers on the Senate select Committee on Intelligence and the Joint Congressional inquiry into 9-11, also addressing panels on terrorism in Washington DC and Los Angeles.

His active assistance to Intelligence and Law Enforcement Agencies in the Global War on Terror has produced some notable success including the exposure of the Abu Graib “hood” photograph as a fake. His work in strategic intelligence takes him on regular trips to the Pentagon and he also met with senior advisors to the President of the Russian Federation in Moscow in November 2005. He participated in the Global Strategic Review conference in Geneva in 2005 and is a regular contributor at conferences such as Intelcon and the Intelligence Summit Washington DC February 2006.

.
Unedited Version

.
————————————————————————————————————————
.

Related articles:

.
Barrister Michael Shrimpton: Obama Born in Mombasa Kenya In 1960, CIA DNA Testing Confirms Obama Dunham Grandparents Not Linked, Wikipedia Scrubs Shrimpton Profile, British Intelligence Files – Citizen Wells

Barrister Michael Shrimpton Obama born in Mombasa Kenya in 1960, CIA DNA testing confirms Obama Dunham grandparents not linked, Wikipedia scrubs Shrimpton profile, British intelligence files

“Why has Obama, since taking the White House, used Justice Department Attorneys, at taxpayer expense, to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells

“Moore said he’s seen no convincing evidence that Obama is a “natural born citizen” and a lot of evidence that suggests he is not.” …Judge Roy Moore interview by WND

“Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.” …George Orwell, “1984″

I had to treat this story with skepticism.

Barrister Michael Shrimpton is real.

Are his claims?

His profile was scrubbed on Wikipedia.

From Birther Report February 25, 2014. – Bombshell: British Intelligence Advisor Barrister Michael Shrimpton; Obama Born In Kenya In 1960; CIA DNA Test

“Shrimpton reported Obama’s purported mom was not pregnant in 1961 and that Obama was born in Kenya in 1960. He said Kenya was under British intelligence files and that Obama’s father ran guns for the Mau Mau. He then dropped a bombshell claiming the CIA did covert DNA testing on Obama at a fundraising dinner and the test came back with no match to the claimed grandparents.”

Read more:

http://www.birtherreport.com/2014/02/bombshell-british-intelligence-advisor.html

Wikipedia scrubbed the Michael Shrimpton profile.

User: Michael Shrimpton

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page has been deleted. The deletion and move log for the page are provided below for reference.

23:46, 11 August 2012 Uncle G (talk | contribs) deleted page User: Michael Shrimpton (Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Michael Shrimpton)

Wikipedia does not have a user page with this exact name. In general, this page should be created and edited by User:Michael Shrimpton. If in doubt, please verify that “Michael Shrimpton” exists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Michael_Shrimpton

From Wikipedia October 10, 2010.

User: Michael Shrimpton

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Michael Shrimpton : A short resume

Michael Shrimpton is a barrister, called to the Bar in London 1983 and is a specialist in National Security and Constitutional Law, Strategic Intelligence and Counter-Terrorism. He has wide ranging connections both in Western Intelligence agencies and amongst ex-Soviet Bloc agencies. Michael has earned respect in the intelligence community for his analysis of previously unacknowledged post WWII covert operations against the West by organisations based in Washington, Munich, Paris and Brussels and which are continuing in post 9-11.

He is Adjunct Professor of intelligence Studies, Department of National Security, Intelligence and Space Studies, American Military University, teaching intelligence subjects at Masters Degree level to inter alia serving intelligence officers. He has represented US and Israeli intelligence officers in law and has briefed staffers on the Senate select Committee on Intelligence and the Joint Congressional inquiry into 9-11, also addressing panels on terrorism in Washington DC and Los Angeles.

His active assistance to Intelligence and Law Enforcement Agencies in the Global War on Terror has produced some notable success including the exposure of the Abu Graib “hood” photograph as a fake. His work in strategic intelligence takes him on regular trips to the Pentagon and he also met with senior advisors to the President of the Russian Federation in Moscow in November 2005. He participated in the Global Strategic Review conference in Geneva in 2005 and is a regular contributor at conferences such as Intelcon and the Intelligence Summit Washington DC February 2006.

Michael has a life-long interest in aviation which is informed by his knowledge of intelligence and defence affairs. His first solo was in 1979 on the British aerospace Bulldog T MK 1 aircraft, University of Wales Air Squadron. He is an Honorary Life Member Bomber Command Association, member of the Air League, member of Friends of the Royal Air Force Museum and RAF Historical Society. He has flown in many types of classic aircraft including a DC-3 (ex-RAF Dakota), Auster MK6 and a Stearman biplane.

He has contributed to aviation by combining intelligence related materials with original analysis of the history of various aircraft types. Notably Michael thinks he identified the covert programme of sabotage against de Havilland Comet airliners Yoke Peter and Yoke Uncle, which crashed in January and April 1954 off the Italian island of Elba (BOAC Flight 781) and in Stromboli (South African Airways Flight 201).

Michael also has other Defence interests and is a member of the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), the Defence and Security Forum, London, Military Commentator Circle, London and the United States Naval Institute. This wide range of high-level western defence, security and intelligence contacts has not only been of relevant to the War on Terror but has also taken him to some interesting locations.

In February 2006, Michael was flown to the nuclear powered aircraft carrier USS Enterprise (CVN-65) at sea in the North Atlantic as part of the US Navy’s Distinguished Visitor Program. He completed his first arrested carrier landing and catapult take-off cycle. In June 2003 he was on the Israel / Lebanon border when he came to within 50 yards of operational Hezbollah terrorists.

He has also travelled extensively by rail, is one of AMTRAK’s few UK Guest Rewards members having crossed Canada by train on the Canadian from Toronto to Vancouver and on the Alaska Railroad from Fairbanks to Anchorage. Some other journeys include the Orient Express from Paris to Istambul, the Frederick Chopin from Warsaw to Berlin, the Moscow Express from Moscow to Berlin via Minsk and Warsaw, the Alpine Express in New Zealand and the Brisbane Limited and Sunlander in Australia. He has driven many thousands of miles by car in the USA, visiting over 30 states, twice driving coast to coast.

Michael’s reputation is not restricted to the aviation, intelligence and defence communities. With extensive media experience, including live radio and television, he has appeared on Tom Marr’s talkshow for WCBM Baltimore January 2004 and again in February 2006; on the John Batchelor Show; on BBC, ITV, Sky (UK), Danish, French, Italian, German, Swiss, Canadian, Australian and New Zealand television. He appeared in a CNN special on the sinking of the ARA General Belgrano for CNN’s Latin American service with a first appearance on Fox News March 2006. He was also Intelligence Consultant to BBC TV’s Spooks series, broadcast in the USA as MI5.

http://web.archive.org/web/20101010175917/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Michael_Shrimpton

More on Barrister Michael Shrimpton to come.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.
————————————————————————————————————————
.

Barack Hussein Soebarkah? – Dr. Jason Kissner

One of the unexplained mysteries in the scanty documentation of the early life of the 44th President of the United States is the appearance of the name Soebarkah as his last name on an official document filled out by his mother.

In a recent contribution to American Thinker, Nick Chase offers very persuasive evidence that the long-form birth certificate released by Obama is a forgery.

While in the midst of developing an argument supporting the idea that Obama was adopted by the Indonesian Lolo Soetoro, Chase states:

Finally, we have Stanley Ann Soetoro’s 1968 application to extend her 1965 passport (now destroyed) for an additional two years, as shown in Figure PPA.

On the second page of the application, Ann moved to exclude her son Barack Hussein Obama (Soebarkah) from her passport, but the item has been crossed out – perhaps on the advice of the consulate in Jakarta, as this would have left seven-year-old Barry passportless – so it didn’t happen.

The appendage “(Soebarkah)” has never been satisfactorily explained by anyone, and I certainly don’t know what “Soebarkah” means, but it does seem to indicate a name change or change in citizenship status for the boy.

Clearly, just what constitutes “a satisfactory explanation” varies with respect to persons, subject matter, context, and so forth.

And yet, there is a very good – and simple – explanation for the seemingly random appearance of the sobriquet “Soebarkah” on Mother Soetoro’s passport application.

Believe it or not, the reason may be linked to one Loretta Fuddy.

Yes, that Loretta Fuddy – the Hawaii state health director who approved the release of Obama’s long-form birth certificate and who has apparently succumbed to a nasty case of post random plane crash induced arrhythmia.

Ann Soetoro and Loretta Fuddy appear to have one very odd thing in common: both have been linked to the Subud cult, which originated in, of all places, Indonesia and was founded by the Javanese Muslim Muhammed Subuh.

The smallish cult appears to have had, at least circa 2001 and according to this profile of sorts in the Honolulu Advertiser, 20,000 members worldwide. Notice the picture of Deliana Fuddy, then “regional helper” and member of the faith? Let’s return to her Subud status in a second.

Note also that the World Subud organization seems to have been based in, of all cities… wait for it…Chicago. Indonesia… Chicago… Hawaii… three locales linked to Obama’s life.

Next, observe that the Advertiser article states that Subud was introduced to Hawai’i in the 1960s (more on this in the conclusion).

Now to Ann Soetoro. She was linked to Subud by her biographer (and New York Times reporter) Janny Scott (Harvard ’77) in the book A Singular Woman: The Untold Story of Barack Obama’s Mother,” reviewed by the New York Times here.

Loretta Fuddy was more than merely a follower of Subud; she worked her way up the ranks and became chairwoman of Subud USA, based in Seattle from 2006 to 2008, and was known to Subud not merely as Loretta Fuddy, but as “Deliana” Loretta Fuddy. In fact, you can see that in its headline, the official Subud “memorial” page drops “Loretta” and refers simply to “Deliana” Fuddy.

Ann Soetoro’s close association with members of the Subud cult will be documented below. But first, note in passing that of all the persons – Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, Atheist, Hindu, or you-name-it – that could have been installed as Director of the State Department of Health in Hawaii, Hawaii alighted on Fuddy – a leader of a small cult with roots in Indonesia and connections to Ann Soetoro – Obama’s mother. Second, observe that Fuddy assumed the Director position in Hawaii in January 2011, just a few months before the release of Obama’s long form birth certificate.

Now to Ann Soetoro’s links with Subud and to a brief discussion of the Barry “Soebarkah” mystery associated with Ann Soetoro’s 1968 passport renewal application.

Read the following excerpt from SubudVoice in 2011 (and please note that I have italicized a couple of sentences to emphasize that the Subud “Staff Reporter” is drawing on material from Janny Scott’s biography of Ann Soetoro; they aren’t simply making an anonymous, empty assertion that can’t be substantiated.)

Obama’s mother and Subud

By Staff Reporter…

A Singular Woman: The Untold Story of Barack Obama’s Mother,a biography of the mother of US President Obama, Ann DunhamSutoro, contains several references to Subud. As is generally known Obama lived with his mother in Jakarta for some years…

Arianne (no second name) wrote to me to say, “Talked to Irin Poellot who is reading the book about Obama’s mother and has already run into several literal mentions of Subud!!! I remember the late Mansur Madeiros mentioning he knew her in Indonesia and he is mentioned in the book! I can’t help wondering if we will get inquiries about Subud since it is mentioned often in a book which probably will be widely read. It also is a delicious fact that our Subud sister, Ms Fuddy, just was appointed to her post in the Health Dept in Hawaii in time to be involved in the documentation of fact that Obama was born there.”

I wrote back asking for more specific information and Arianne replied, “Irin kindly supplied some quotes:In chapter 4 “Initiation in Java” the Subud members are quoted. And then (on page 116): “…she (Ann) was hired to start an English-language, business-communications department in one of the few private non profit management-training schools in the country.”

Ann “found a group of young Americans and Britons enrolled in an intensive course in Bahasa Indonesia, the national language, at the University of Indonesia recalled Irwan Holmes, (a member of the original group). She was looking for teachers. A half dozen of them accepted her invitation, many of them members of an international spiritual organization, Subud, with a residential compound in a suburb of Jakarta..”

And… Mohammad Mansur Madeiros, a reclusive and scholarly Subud member from Fall River, Massachusetts, and Harvard, whom Ann hired as a teacher, had immersed himself so deeply in Javanese culture, language and religion that friends nicknamed him Mansur Java. When he died in 2007, friends recalled his preference for the company of ordinary Indonesians – street vendors and becak drivers – over that of other Subud members and expatriates.”

But what might the Ann Soetoro, Deliana Fuddy, Subud links really have to do with the sobriquet Barry Soebarkah?

To help answer that, transport yourself backward in time and sit at the feet of the Indonesian Subud master Bapak circa 1963:

Question:1 Many people in Subud change their names. Is this necessary? Is it important? How does the change of a name affect us? Physically, spiritually or both?

Bapak: Brothers and sisters, whether it is necessary or not depends on what you want…

If changing one’s name for “spiritual reasons” was something frequently done by followers of Subud’s Bapak, and Stanley Ann Soetoro was in fact closely associated with Subud, it is reasonable to suppose that “Soebarkah” arose in the same way new names for others (like “Deliana” Loretta Fuddy?) associated with Subud did: as a matter of course depending on the case.

Readers might agree that the above is a quite reasonable account of the origin of Barry “Soebarkah.”

But there is something else. The above biographical material bonds Ann Soetoro to Subud members via an English language, business communications department post. According to the New York Times here, that would have been around 1970 or 1971. However, the passport renewal application with the name “Soebarkah” dates to 1968. This suggests that either the “Soebarkah” handle came from nowhere, or that matters are as we have discussed and that Ann Soetoro in fact came to Subud before 1970 – perhaps in Hawaii.

Clearly, we might want to recall that the above linked Honolulu Advertiser Subud profile indicates that Subud was introduced to Hawai’i in the 1960s.

In closing, the Ann Soetoro’s 1968 passport renewal application raises the spectre of possible Obama birth certificate fraud yet again. Have a look at page 2 of the document:

“Sorebarkah” appears in the section labeled “Amend to Include (Exclude) Children.”

The name Barack Hussein Obama (Sorebarkah) is crossed out.

Nick Chase has concluded that this signifies that Ann Soetoro had improvidently decided to exclude Barack from her passport renewal. Chase thinks that Soetoro changed her mind about exclusion after having been informed by the Consulate that doing so would leave Barack passportless.

But there is another possibility – one just as valid on its face.

What if Soetoro was trying to include Obama in the renewal, but she wasn’t able to produce a birth certificate, and the Subud name “Soebarkah” just didn’t do the trick? (hat tip Louise Hodges for the “inclusion” possibility; one can’t be certain why she did not link the inclusion possibility to Soebarkah).

That could explain why the name Subud name “Soebarkah” appears nowhere else (that we are aware of anyway),

Of course, we might then have to wonder exactly how Obama did his traveling at certain points in time, but then perhaps Subud is, at least at times, more than a mere cult?

Dr. Jason Kissner is associate professor of criminology at California State University, Fresno. You can reach him at crimprof2010@hotmail.com.

.

.
Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

House Intelligence Subcommittee Chairman: Benghazi Personnel Were Told ‘You’re On Your Own’ (Video)

Benghazi Staffers Told: ‘You Are On Your Own’ – WorldNetDaily

A congressman has revealed a new detail about the 2012 Benghazi attack, disclosing that staff members at the besieged U.S. special mission were told in a directive, “You are on your own.”

.

In an interview with CNN yesterday, Rep. Lynn Westmoreland, R-Ga., chairman of the House Intelligence Subcommittee, charged the State Department, then run by Hillary Clinton, was culpable in the attack and ensuing cover-up.

While CNN.com focused on a different aspect of Westmoreland’s interview, running the headline “GOP Rep: Benghazi Not A ‘Complete Cover-Up,’” other statements made in the nine-minute sit-down may be more significant.

Westmoreland’s committee recently questioned CIA agents and contractors who were on the ground during the attack.

The lawmaker told CNN his committee learned a directive was issued Aug. 11 – one month before the attack – telling Benghazi staff they were on their own.

“And so we are looking into that directive to find out exactly who put that out,” he stated.

Asked whether he thought the government did its job to protect the facility, Westmoreland replied, “Absolutely not.”

He pointed specifically to the State Department.

“I think this will come back to the State Department,” he said.

Later in the interview, he again pointed to Clinton’s State Department for making what he said were claims contradicted by the intelligence community.

“You had the State Department trying to tell one story, and you had the security – the intelligence community – that may have been trying to sell another story,” he said.

Westmoreland said the Benghazi compound “itself is not set up for protection.”

He stated that when his committee interviewed the people who were on the ground, “they said they were really surprised that the lack of security at the mission facility.”

“They also testified that the people at the facility had been wanting help, requesting help, requesting additional security,” he said.

Westmoreland said “they just couldn’t believe that those guys were over there as unprepared and unequipped as they were.”

.

.
Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

National Intelligence Director Apologizes For Making ‘Erroneous’ Statement (aka Lying) To Congress

DNI Chief Clapper Apologizes For ‘Erroneous’ Answer On NSA Surveillance – Fox News

Director of National Intelligence James Clapper has apologized for telling Congress the National Security Agency doesn’t gather data on millions of Americans.

.

The apology comes after former NSA contractor Edward Snowden gave top-secret information to newspapers that last month published stories about the federal government collecting the data from phone calls and such Internet communications as emails.

Clapper apologized in a letter to Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein that was posted Tuesday on the website of Clapper’s office.

Clapper said in the June 21 letter that his answer was “clearly erroneous.”

Americans have long known the United States implemented surveillance programs under the Patriot Act, in the wake of 9/11, with the goal of preventing more terror attacks, and that the programs targeted foreign and overseas suspects. However, many Americans seem stunned at the apparent extent of the programs and that the broad data collection included basic details on Americans’ phone records.

Oregon Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden asked Clapper at a March 12 congressional hearing whether the NSA “collects any type of data at all on millions of hundreds of millions of Americas?”

Wyden asked because Clapper suggested publicly months earlier that stories about the NSA keeping “dossiers” on millions of Americans were “completely false.”

Clapper told Wyden: “No sir, it does not.”

When asked for clarification, he said “not wittingly.”

After the latest stories appeared to reveal otherwise, Clapper said he gave the “least untruthful answer possible.”

Clapper said in the letter to Feinstein that when answering he was confounded by the word dossier and challenged by trying to protect classified information. He also said that when answering Wyden, he was focused on whether the U.S. collected the content of phone and email conversations, and not so-called metadata, which essentially is phone numbers, email addresses, dates and times. He wrote that he “simply didn’t think of” the pertinent section of the Patriot Act under which that information can be collected.

“Thus my response was clearly erroneous – for which I apologize,” Clapper said to Feinstein, in the letter.

Snowden’s father Lon, meanwhile, chastised Clapper for his answers in an open letter Snowden sent Tuesday to his son.

“We leave it to the American people to decide whether you or Director Clapper is the superior patriot,” Snowden wrote in the letter to his son.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Former Intelligence Agent Accuses NSA, Obama Of Lying, Alleges Broader Spying Programs

Bombshell: Fmr. Intelligence Agent Accuses NSA, Obama Of Lying, Alleges Broader Spying Programs – Mediaite

On Friday, MSNBC anchor Craig Melvin interviewed former U.S. Air Force intelligence Agent Russell Tice about the revelations surrounding the National Security Agency’s monitoring of Americans’ digital and electronic communications. Tice accused a variety of administration officials, including President Barack Obama, of disseminating outright falsehoods in their efforts to explain those programs. He added that those programs are far broader than any government official has said up to this point.

.

Tice slammed the president’s meeting with privacy advocates today, conceding the point that this was largely a “PR move.”

“There is a lot of disinformation going on,” Tice observed. “I’ve always said the station is much worse.”

Tice accused the NSA’s past and current directors of misleading the public regarding the scope of the agency’s communications monitoring programs.

“NSA, today, is collecting everything – including content – of every digital communication in this country, both computer and phone, and that information is being stored indefinitely,” Tice said. “And that’s something that they’re lying about.”

Melvin noted that The Guardian reported Thursday that domestic communications can be kept if they were obtained “inadvertently, and they can be used by courts under certain circumstances. He noted that this news also contradicts statements by the president.

“You’ve got to understand, the FISA court is being used as a screen to be able to use information that ultimately they can use to throw at somebody in a court of law with a grand jury,” Tice said, noting that this happened to him and Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times reporter, Jim Risen.

He says that the FISA court appeal justifies the government collecting information on Americans that can later be used in criminal cases against them.

Watch the clip below:

.

.
Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

National Intelligence Director Clapper Goes From Simple Liar To Batshit Crazy Liar Overnight (Video)

Intelligence Chief Clapper: I Gave ‘Least Untruthful’ Answer On U.S. Spying – Yahoo News

Director of National Intelligence James Clapper is really struggling to explain why he told Congress in March (see video above) that the National Security Agency does not intentionally collect any kind of data on millions of Americans. His latest take: It’s an unfair question, he said, like “When are you going to stop beating your wife?” And it seems to depend on the meaning of “collect.”

.

“I responded in what I thought was the most truthful, or least untruthful, manner by saying ‘no,'” Clapper told NBC News on Sunday.

A newly revealed NSA program, however, in which the agency secretly vacuumed up the telephone records of millions of Verizon customers seems to fit the definition of both “data” and “millions of Americans.”

Last week, Clapper said his “no” meant that NSA analysts don’t read Americans’ emails. Some have noted that could explain his earlier answer because “collect” has a precise meaning in intelligence-gathering circles, and it’s along those lines.

On Sunday, Clapper elaborated: “This has to do with of course somewhat of a semantic, perhaps some would say too cute by half. But it is – there are honest differences on the semantics of what – when someone says ‘collection’ to me, that has a specific meaning, which may have a different meaning to him.”

Below is the exchange in the March hearing of the relevant Senate Intelligence Committee. Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore. – who has long warned about excessive government surveillance of Americans, though in veiled terms because the information is classified – had just one question for Clapper. The especially important parts are in bold.

Wyden: “And this is for you, Director Clapper, again on the surveillance front. And I hope we can do this in just a yes or no answer, because I know Sen. Feinstein wants to move on.

“Last summer the NSA director was at a conference and he was asked a question about the NSA surveillance of Americans. He replied, and I quote here, ‘…the story that we have millions or hundreds of millions of dossiers on people is completely false.’

“The reason I’m asking the question is, having served on the committee now for a dozen years, I don’t really know what a dossier is in this context. So what I wanted to see is if you could give me a yes or no answer to the question: Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?”

Clapper: “No, sir.”

Wyden: “It does not.”

Clapper: “Not wittingly. There are cases where they could inadvertently perhaps collect, but not wittingly.”

Wyden: “All right. Thank you. I’ll have additional questions to give you in writing on that point, but I thank you for the answer.”

.

.
On Sunday, NBC News’ Andrea Mitchell pressed him on the NSA collection and on the exchange with Wyden.

Clapper suggested that the senator’s question was unfair.

“As I said, I have great respect for Sen. Wyden. I thought, though in retrospect, I was asked [a] ‘When are you going to stop beating your wife’ kind of question, which is… not answerable necessarily by a simple yes or no,” Clapper said.

“So I responded in what I thought was the most truthful, or least untruthful, manner by saying ‘no,'” Clapper said, indicating that he did not consider it “collection” unless government officials actually reviewed the content of the communications. The NSA program, regarding phone records, scoops up “metadata” – phone numbers called, duration of calls, location and the like.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

*VIDEO* Security Insider Explains What Happens In Intelligence, Military & Diplomatic Communities During Consulate Attacks



.

*VIDEOS* Mark Steyn Discusses Barack Obama’s Intelligence

Part 1

.
Part 2