Showing posts with label House Select Committee. Show all posts
Showing posts with label House Select Committee. Show all posts

Thursday, August 13, 2015

[VIDEO] Gowdy Heard About Hillary’s Huge Trouble, And His Response Is One She’ll Hate…

Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., chairman of the House Select Committee on Benghazi, responded to the news that Hillary Clinton plans to turn over her email server to the Justice Department, in response to an investigation into the possible mishandling of classified information by the former secretary of state. (VIDEO)
The move by the Bureau comes following the reports that the Intelligence Community’s Inspector General discovered four classified documents, to date, among those released by Clinton–two of which are “top secret,” the highest security classification.
As reported by Western Journalism, Clinton stated during a press conference in March: “I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email. There is no classified material.”
Clinton’s campaign spokesman Nick Merrill said that “She directed her team to give her e-mail server that was used during her tenure as secretary to the Department of Justice, as well as a thumb drive containing copies of her e-mails already provided to the State Department.” Merrill added: “She pledged to cooperate with the government’s security inquiry, and if there are more questions, we will continue to address them.”
Fox News’ Bill Hemmer asked Gowdy on Wednesday morning if he expected full cooperation from Clinton now. “It’s hard not to laugh when I hear that,” Gowdy responded. “I know he’s in the business of being paid to say absurd things, but if that really was his intent and her intent, why did they set up this unprecedented email arrangement?”
“Why did she keep the emails for 20 months after she left the Department of State?” the congressman continued. “She did not turn them over then. Why did she delete emails after 20 months? Did all of the sudden she decide after 20 months, ‘This is too burdensome for me to keep a bunch of emails on my server, so let me not only delete them, but wipe the server clean.’
“If she were interested in cooperation, she would not have done any of the things she has done to date. This is not about cooperation. This is not about convenience. It’s about control. She wanted to control access to the public record. And she also got away with it, but she didn’t,” said Gowdy.
Hemmer asked Gowdy if Clinton’s alleged mishandling of classified information fit the same category as that for which Gen. David Petraeus was prosecuted and convicted.
“The same rules ought to apply irrespective of their station in life. So I am going to have to count on the [FBI] and [its director] Jim Comey, who has a reputation for evenhandedness and fairness. The same folks who investigated and prosecuted Gen. Petraeus are looking into the current allegations with respect to classified information. If the facts are the same, I would expect the result to be the same,” he replied.
Fox News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano believes Clinton’s breach is far more serious than Petraeus’. He said: “In his case it was ‘confidential’ materials, which is the lowest level of classification. In her case it is ‘top secret’, which is the highest level of classification.” In the case of Petraeus, the documents were in his home, while Clinton’s were on her personal server, making them vulnerable to hacking.
Gowdy released a statement Tuesday highlighting the severity of the former secretary of state’s actions.“This is a serious national security issue, and the seriousness of it should transcend normal, partisan politics.”

Wednesday, August 12, 2015

[COMMENTARY] Contentions Hillary Clinton’s Slow-Motion Implosion

“It is very likely,” Secretary of State John Kerry confirmed when asked by a CBS reporter if he believed the Russians and the Chinese were reading his emails. “I certainly write things with that awareness.” The Democratic Party’s elder statesman and former presidential nominee might have known that he was twisting the knife. While it was perhaps unintentional, his comments reflect an accurate assessment bubbling up from the liberal subconscious that Hillary Clinton has been irreparably damaged by the revelations regarding her scandalous conduct as Kerry’s predecessor at Foggy Bottom.
Hillary Clinton could have surrendered her “homebrew” email server, on which she conducted the affairs of state in violation of both State Department and White House guidelines, to a third party at any time. Indeed, that was the request of the Republican members of the House Select Committee on Benghazi. If she were so inclined, she could have rid herself of the suspicion that she had something to hide. Clinton might not have found exculpation in a third party investigation of the system that once held over 30,000 deleted emails that Clinton assured Americans were of no interest to them, she would have at least created the impression that she had belatedly embraced transparency. Instead, she dug in, closed ranks, and bristled with indignation at anyone who dared question her integrity. In the process, Clinton repeatedly misled the publicand the press on matters both substantial and paltry.
Hillary Clinton could have done many things to mitigate the damage wrought to her political image by the steady stream of information about her behavior at State. Instead, in deference to the sense of entitlement her enablers have cultivated over a quarter-century, she did nothing. Now, Clinton will be forced to surrender her server to the FBI. What’s more, the email communications that were contained on a thumb drive in the care of her attorney, a man without the requisite security clearances who wasdeemed post hoc by the State Department to suddenly be occupying a secure information facility, must also hand over to the Feds what is in his possession.
This final shoe dropped after two inspectors general alleged that, not only did Clinton’s unsecure email server contain sensitive information that was marked as such at the time in which it was received, but some of that information was classified “Top Secret.” Among the communications Hillary Clinton received on her server included references to coded information and imagery obtained via secure methods. Carelessly allowing this material to be sent over an unclassified and unprotected email system is a violation of federal law. Full stop.
But Hillary Clinton’s privilege does not die easy. Reporters have developed a tic that compels them to assert that Hillary Clinton personally is not the subject of any federal investigation. Only her potentially unlawful conduct has captured the attention of investigators.
“There are several investigations into her conduct, not into her, but into her use of personal email and a personal server,” McClatchy reporter Anita Kumar told MSNBCon Wednesday. She was merely echoing a statement in her employer’s report, which averred, “Clinton, herself, is not a target.”
This is an oft-repeated refrain. The Department of Justice to which this investigation had been referred last month has repeatedly asserted, “Clinton herself is not the target of the investigation.” This transparent effort to preserve Hillary Clinton’s rapidly decaying political prospects has roiled even FBI sources.
“It’s definitely a criminal probe,” a source within the FBI told New York Post reporters last week. “I’m not sure why they’re not calling it a criminal probe.”
“The DOJ [Department of Justice] and FBI can conduct civil investigations in very limited circumstances,” but that’s not what this is, the source stressed. “In this case, a security violation would lead to criminal charges. Maybe DOJ is trying to protect her campaign.”
Maybe. Just maybe.
The rhetorical gymnastics required of reporters and public officials who contend that Clinton is herself not a target of an investigation is simply a marvel. It’s also supremely insulting. The contention that only Clinton’s behavior and not her gilded personage is of interest to criminal investigators is a familiar dodge. It’s of a kind with open borders immigration activists who solemnly scold the public with the contention that “people can never be illegal” and then go about high-fiving one another as if they’ve deftly scored some stylistic points. No, people are not illegal, but their behavior sometimes is. No, Hillary Clinton is not the subject of an investigation, but her reckless disregard for America’s state secrets most certainly is. Only in the minds of Clinton’s increasingly desperate defenders is this a distinction with a perceptible difference.
It seems likely now that the swirling controversy around Clinton’s conduct will dog her for the remainder of her presidential campaign. There will be no exculpation for her behavior – merely a slow drip of information regarding her conduct and the jeopardy in which it put American national security. Clinton’s claim to be a competent commander-in-chief is forever tarnished. Even if someone close to her were to fall on their sword, it is too late to avoid the impression that this attempt at damage control was not done at the behest of a Machiavellian political figure failing in the effort to revive her ailing career.
Judging from the tone of the commentary surrounding Clinton’s downfall, it seems as though political observers that they cannot believe what they are witnessing. How could it be possible that a colossus like Clinton who seemed destined to occupy the Oval Office could be undone by such a careless misstep? But in the same way that a mosquito bite can fell the strongest man if left uncared for, what was once a minor scrape for Clinton has grown gangrenous. On Wednesday, a poll of New Hampshire Democrats showed that the eccentric socialist Senator Bernie Sanders has finally eclipsed Clinton. She now faces the prospect of a wounding primary and a competitive general election. If Democrats are forced to choose between advancing the liberal project and Hillary Clinton’s reputation, they will choose the latter. That horrible choice was once mere hypothetical. This morning, it is all too real.

Thursday, July 9, 2015

Benghazi Panel Chair: Clinton Was Issued Subpoena

Image: Benghazi Panel Chair: Clinton Was Issued Subpoena
(Ethan Miller/Getty Images)

Republican lawmakers investigating the 2012 attacks in Benghazi, Libya, released a subpoena Wednesday issued to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, refuting her claims that she was never subpoenaed.

Clinton used a private email address and a home-based server during her time at the State Department (2009-2013), and investigators on the House Select Committee on Benghazi are trying to piece together what Clinton knew at the time of the attacks.

During an interview with CNN this week, Clinton said everything she did was "permitted," including deleting thousands of emails without turning them over to the government.
"I didn't have to turn over anything. I chose to turn over 55,000 pages because I wanted to go above and beyond what was expected of me," Clinton said. "Because I knew the vast majority of everything that was official already was in the State Department system. And now I think it's kind of fun, people get a real-time, behind-the-scenes look at what I was emailing about, and what I was communicating about."
On Wednesday, the Select Committee on Benghazi released a copy of one subpoena  sent to Clinton in March asking for all documents and records related to Libya from emails she sent in 2011 and 2012.

"The committee has issued several subpoenas, but I have not sought to make them public," committee Chairman Trey Gowdy said in an emailed statement.
"I would not make this one public now, but after Secretary Clinton falsely claimed the committee did not subpoena her, I have no choice in order to correct the inaccuracy. The committee immediately subpoenaed Clinton personally after learning the full extent of her unusual email arrangement with herself, and would have done so earlier if the State Department or Clinton had been forthcoming that State did not maintain custody of her records and only Secretary Clinton herself had her records when Congress first requested them.





Popular Posts