More evidence that Hillary Clinton used Sidney Blumenthal as her advisor has come to light as new State Department emails have emerged, despite her testimony that Blumenthal was never her advisor:
FOX NEWS – Newly released emails conflict with former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s 11-hour testimony before the Benghazi Select Committee, according to a review of the transcripts and public records.
One of the conflicts involves the role played by Clinton confidant Sidney Blumenthal.
Regarding the dozens of emails from him, which in many cases were forwarded to her State Department team, Clinton testified: “He’s a friend of mine. He sent me information he thought might be of interest. Some of it was, some of it wasn’t, some of it I forwarded to be followed up on. He had no official position in the government. And he was not at all my adviser on Libya.”
But a newly released email from February 2011 shows Blumenthal advocated for a no-fly zone over Libya, writing, “U.S. might consider advancing tomorrow. Libyan helicopters and planes are raining terror on cities.” The email was forwarded by Clinton to her deputy chief of staff Jake Sullivan with the question, “What do you think of this idea?”
A second email from former British Prime Minister Tony Blair in March 2011 also advocated for a no-fly zone, with Blair stating, “Please work on the non-fly zone, or the other options I mentioned. Oil prices are rising, markets are down. We have to be decisive.”
In the end, Clinton advocated for the no-fly zone and was able to gather support within the Obama administration to implement it.
In another email from March 5, 2012, Clinton appears to use Blumenthal as what is known in intelligence circles as a “cut out,” a type of intermediary to gather information, allowing the policymaker plausible deniability. In this case, the emails focused on the increasingly chaotic and fragmenting political landscape in Libya after dictator Muammar Qaddafi was removed from power.
In the one-page document, Blumenthal writes that Jonathan Powell, a former senior British government adviser to Blair, is “trying to replicate what we did in Northern Ireland by setting up secret channels between insurgents and government, and then, where appropriate, developing these negotiations.” This type of backchannel discussion helped bring about the 1998 Good Friday peace agreement in Northern Ireland.
Clinton responded two hours later. “I’d like to see Powell when he’s in the building,” with her staff responding, “Will follow up.” In both instances, Clinton’s actions further undercut sworn testimony to the Select Committee that Blumenthal was “not at all my adviser on Libya.”
Hey nothing to see here. Hillary had a great week, so said the media, when Republicans grilled her and exposed that she lied about Benghazi. So that’s what matters here, not getting to the truth.
So move along.
Who ever knows how, or if, “the law” will apply to Democrat royalty? It sure looks as if Hillary Clinton committed perjury with her sworn statement that she turned over all of the official correspondence from her secret email server, and deleted only the yoga routines, cookie recipes, wedding reception plans, and so forth.
What the Associated Press reported on Friday afternoon sounds like the “game over” moment Democrats have been fearing since the Clinton email scandal came to a boil:
The Obama administration has discovered a chain of emails that Hillary Rodham Clinton failed to turn over when she provided what she said was the full record of work-related correspondence as secretary of state, officials said Friday, adding to the growing questions related to the Democratic presidential front-runner’s unusual usage of a private email account and server while in government.
The messages were exchanged with retired Gen. David Petraeus when he headed the military’s U.S. Central Command, responsible for running the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. They began before Clinton entered office and continued into her first days at the State Department. They largely pertained to personnel matters and don’t appear to deal with highly classified material, officials said, but their existence challenges Clinton’s claim that she has handed over the entirety of her work emails from the account.
Hillary Clinton didn’t just “claim” she turned over all of her work-related emails. She signed a sworn statement to that effect in August, under penalty of perjury, and submitted it to a federal court. It’s the same statement her top aides Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills refused to sign.
Many observers thought the proverbial Other Shoe would drop on Clinton when the FBI started recovering deleted emails from the server she thought was wiped clean, but it doesn’t sound like we’ve even gotten to that closet full of Other Shoes yet. The AP report says this previously undisclosed string of Clinton emails was “first discovered by the Defense Department and then passed to the State Department’s inspector general.”
State Department spokesman John Kirby said these emails were received “in the last several days” and confirmed they “were not previously in the possession of the department.” He added that the State Department has forwarded the documents to Congress.
Also, try to contain your surprise, but Clinton and her campaign have been lying about when she started using her homebrew email server. These new emails between her and Petraeus “start on Jan. 10, 2009, with Clinton using the older email account. But by Jan. 28 – a week after her swearing in – she switched to using the private email address on a homebrew server that she would rely on for the rest of her tenure. There are less than 10 emails back and forth in total, officials said, and the chain ends on Feb. 1.”
The laughable “frequently asked questions” page produced by Clinton’s campaign claims she didn’t start using the homebrew server until March 18, 2009.
A newly uncovered document shows that Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton personally signed off on a questionable employment decision she previously claimed she was not involved with.
Top Clinton aide Huma Abedin was able to work for the Clinton Foundation, Department of State and the private consulting firm Teneo Strategies as a Special Government Employee (SGE). When questioned about the arrangement, Clinton denied any involvement, but new documents obtained by Judicial Watch show that Clinton personally signed off on the position change.
Clinton signed the document March 23, 2012 to approve the change in title, according to the documents first reported by Politico.
The employment arrangement for Clinton’s deputy chief of staff raised questions about possible conflict of interest, particularly given allegations that Clinton used her position at the State Department to help the Clinton Foundation.
On top of that, the document appears to contradict statements Clinton made earlier about the arrangement.
In an interview with Andrea Mitchell at NBC that aired earlier this month, Mitchell asked Clinton about Abedin holding jobs at the Clinton Foundation, State Department, and Teneo, a firm started by a former Bill Clinton aide.
“Well, you know, I was not directly involved in that,” Clinton answered. “But everything that [Abedin] did was approved, under the rules, as they existed, by the State Department.”
Either Clinton does not think giving personal approval via her signature was being “directly involved,” or she was dishonest with Mitchell.
Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley has been critical of Abedin’s multiple interests and the lack of transparency.
“How can the taxpayer know who exactly SGEs are working for at any given moment?” Grassley said in a statement in late August. “How can the ethics officer at the State Department know?”
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is asking a judge to allow an investigation of the closed-door workings of President Barack Obama’s executive amnesty, following the discovery that 100,000 illegal immigrants had secretly been given three-year amnesty documents well before a promised start date.
“The Obama Administration appears to have already been issuing expanded work permits, in direct contradiction to what they told a federal judge previously in this litigation,” Paxton said in a Thursday statement describing his legal request, which was signed by the governors or attorneys general of 26 states.
“The circumstances behind this must be investigated, and the motion we seek would help us determine to what extent the Administration might have misrepresented the facts in this case,” he added.
The judge has frozen Obama’s amnesty since Feb. 16, pending the future decisions of appeals court judges. Without the judge’s decision, Obama’s deputies already would be preparing work permits and tax rebates for illegals.
Paxton’s hardball response was cheered by Texas Gov. Greg Abbott. ”I commend Attorney General Paxton for continuing to hold the Obama Administration accountable, and I’m confident an investigation would find the Administration knowingly or recklessly misled a Federal Court in issuing thousands of amnesty documents illegally,” he said Thursday.
“President Obama has continued to show complete disregard for the Rule of Law by acting beyond his Constitutional authority at every stage of this process,” he added.
The judge, Andrew Hanen, showed his skepticism about the administration in a 2014 case, when he said border officers were being used by the administration to illegally transfer foreign children from Central America to their parents living illegally in U.S. cities.
On Feb. 16, Hanen froze Obama’s two-part amnesty, which was intended to provide residency, work permits and tax rebates to at least four million illegals, after concluding it likely violated the federal government’s rule-making process.
The amnesty for roughly 1 million younger illegals is called the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, and it was launched in June 2012, five months before the 2012 election. Obama’s November amnesty extends the work permits given to the younger illegals from two years to three years.
The amnesty for roughly 4 million parent illegals is called DAPA, or Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents. Obama’s plan would give them work permits, tax rebates, Social Security numbers, drivers’ license and a fast-track to citizenship.
In November, administration statements had declared it would not start the DACA upgrade until Feb. 18, and would not start the DAPA amnesty until in May 2015. On Jan. 15, Obama’s lawyer told the judge that “no applications for the revised DACA… would be accepted until the 18th of February.”
But Obama’s deputies were already handing out the three-year DACA amnesties. By mid-February, 100,000 three-year amnesties had been given to illegals who had received two-year amnesties in 2012 or 2013.
On March 3, Obama’s lawyers admitted to the judge that officials had already given the three-year DACA amnesties to 100,000 people, according to a March 4 article in the Washington Examiner.
“Out of an abundance of caution, however, Defendants wish to bring one issue to the Court’s attention,” said the administration’s document given to the judge. “Between November 24, 2014 and the issuance of the Court’s [Feb. 16] Order, USCIS granted three-year periods of deferred action to approximately 100,000 individuals who had requested deferred action under the original 2012 DACA guidelines.”
The officials excused the deception by claiming that the announced Feb. 18 start date “may have led to confusion about when USCIS had begun providing three-year terms of deferred action to individuals already eligible for deferred action under 2012 DACA.”
The administration’s “confusion” was exposed March 3, the same day that top GOP leaders allied with Democrats to pressure GOP legislators to pass a budget bill for the Department of Homeland Security. The budget did pass, and it doesn’t block funding for Obama’s unpopular and possibly illegal amnesty.
California state Sen. Roderick Wright was convicted Tuesday of perjury and voter fraud for falsely claiming he lived in an apartment in the district he represents when he actually lives elsewhere.
The conviction on all eight felony counts doesn’t immediately bar Wright from the Senate, though his colleagues could decide to remove the long-serving Democrat before he is sentenced.
Defense attorney Winston Kevin McKesson said he would file an appeal.
Prosecutors said Wright committed fraud when he made it appear that he had moved into an Inglewood property he owned in order to run in 2008 to represent the 25th Senate District. They said Wright actually lived outside the district.
Wright was charged with counts including perjury, false declaration of candidacy and fraudulent voting. He could face a maximum of eight years and four months in prison when he is sentenced on March 12.
Wright currently represents the 35th Senate District because of redistricting.
“It’s a punch to the gut,” Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, said of Wright’s conviction. “We hold Sen. Wright in high regard.”
Steinberg said it is up to the Senate, not the court, to decide if Wright should be removed from office. He said he will consult with his fellow senators, the Legislature’s lawyers and Sen. Richard Roth, D-Riverside, chairman of the Senate Committee on Legislative Ethics, before deciding on any possible next steps.
Wright’s conviction came as the state Senate waits to see if federal charges will be filed against another Los Angeles-area state lawmaker. Democratic Sen. Ron Calderon of Montebello was removed from his committee assignments after a leaked FBI affidavit alleged that he accepted money to influence legislation.
Calderon has not been charged with any crime and denies wrongdoing.
“Of course I’m concerned” that Wright’s conviction and the allegations against Calderon will harm the Legislature and particularly the Senate in the eyes of the public, Steinberg said.
“But as I’ve said before, the Senate is not only a great institution, it’s an honest and ethical institution,” he said. “We are faced with two very, very different situations, but two situations nonetheless. And I’m doing my very best to respect the membership, respect the affected members, but first and foremost to stand for the institution and protect the institution.”
At Wright’s trial, testimony focused on his living arrangements. He claimed that he lived in one unit of a five-unit complex in Inglewood and used the same address when he registered to vote in 2007. Prosecutors said he actually lived in a single-family home in the swankier community of Baldwin Hills, which was in the 26th District.
McKesson said Wright met the requirements for establishing a “domicile” in Inglewood.
Wright served in the Assembly from 1996 to 2002 and has been in the Senate since 2008. He is set to be termed out of office in 2016.