EXCLUSIVE: 'Don't you know who I am?' How Hillary's 'arrogant' aide Huma Abedin - now in the crosshairs of Servergate - tried to force her way past Secret Service agents without ID and expected them to carry her luggage

Ronald Kessler,  a former Washington Post and Wall Street Journal investigative reporter, is the New York Times bestselling author of The Secrets of the FBI and The First Family Detail: Secret Service Agents Reveal the Hidden Lives of the Presidents, now in paperback.

When it comes to arrogance, Huma Abedin, Hillary Clinton's longtime top aide, and her presidential candidate boss are two peas in a pod, according to Secret Service agents.

For that reason, it's not surprising that the FBI investigation of Hillary's use of classified emails reportedly got a jump start after uncovering highly classified emails sent by Abedin and another Clinton aide.

Yesterday, it was revealed that State Department BlackBerry devices issued to the  former Secretary of State's aides Cheryl Mills and Abedin, 39, have likely been destroyed or sold off, the department said in a court filing.

Scroll down for video 

+5

At your service: Hillary and Huma Abedin leave posh department store Bergdorf Goodman in New York city surrounded by Secret Service agents. 'There's not an agent in the service who wants to be in Hillary's detail,' a current agent, not in this photo, says. 'If agents get the nod to go to her detail, that's considered a form of punishment

Based on the research and interviews for my book The Secrets of the FBI, I can say that the FBI would not have opened such a high profile investigation unless it already believed Hillary had violated criminal laws governing handling and dissemination of classified material. 

Nor, as some media reports have claimed, is the investigation a 'security investigation' into handling of the emails. The FBI does nothing unless it is pursuing violations of criminal laws and targeting individuals. 

And the pertinent laws make no distinction between classified material that is marked as such or not. If material is classified and is handled improperly, that is a violation of criminal laws.

While Hillary Clinton claims she will be the champion of the little people if elected, the truth is that behind the scenes she is so nasty and abusive toward her own Secret Service detail and treats them with such contempt that being assigned to Hillary's detail is considered a form of punishment within the Security Service. 

According to Secret Service agents interviewed for my book The First Family Detail, Abedin can be just as rude and nasty as Hillary. A former agent recalls helping Abedin when she got lost driving Chelsea to the February 2008 Democrat presidential debate in Los Angeles.

+5

Closer than close: It's not surprising, says Kessler, that the FBI investigation of Hillary's use of classified emails reportedly got a jump start after uncovering highly classified emails sent by Abedin 

'She was belligerent and angry about being late for the event,' the former agent says. 'No appreciation for any of it, not a thank-you or anything. That was common for her people to be rude.'

At another event in Los Angeles, a female agent challenged Abedin because she was not wearing a pin that identifies cleared aides to Secret Service agents. The agent had no idea who she was.

'You don't have the proper identification to go beyond this point,' the agent told her.

'Huma basically tried to throw her weight around,' a former agent says. 'She tried to just force her way through and said belligerently, 'Do you know who I am?''

That got her nowhere. Eventually, Abedin - who is married to disgraced former congressman Anthony Weiner - cooperated with the agent and suggested a contact who could verify her identity

Via: Daily Mail

Continue Reading....

[VIDEO] Crowley: Why Obama Is Torpedoing Hillary Clinton

There is only one person who controls Hillary Clinton’s fate, and it isn’t Hillary Clinton.

Mrs. Clinton is careening toward possible criminal charges involving her alleged mishandling of classified material on her personal email server while she was secretary of State. And President Obama is driving the bus.

She and her team have, of course, reverted to form, blaming everyone but themselves: a “right-wing conspiracy,” The New York Times, overzealous investigators. What they are missing, however, is the one figure who wants her taken out politically, and who has the power to do it.

She and Mr. Obama have a long history as frenemies. Recall Mr. Obama’s rejoinder at a 2008 debate, when Mrs. Clinton touted her likability: “You’re likable enough.” Or recall President Bill Clinton’s famous put-down of Mr. Obama: “A few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee.”

Beyond the bad blood, however, Mr. Obama has a more important reason for doing her in. As I have written previously, he needs a successor he can control. Over the years, including recently, he has waxed rhapsodic over a possible third term to continue his “fundamental transformation of the nation.” Mrs. Clinton will not provide it; therefore, she must be sidelined.

If Mr. Obama does not want an investigation to go forward, it does not go forward. Witness the scandals involving the Internal Revenue Service, Benghazi, Veterans Administration and Operation Fast and Furious gunrunning. In each case, Mr. Obama claimed he learned about the scandal “from the news.” (That’s interesting coming from a guy who claims he only rarely watches or reads said “news.”)

Via: Washington Times

Continue Reading....

CALIFORNIA: Trial Lawyers Abuse Prop. 65 — At The Expense Of Small Business

The Center for Accountability in Science released a new video interviewing small businesses about the effects of California’s chemical warning law, known as Proposition 65, on their operations. Rather than making Californians safer, Proposition 65 has become a tool for trial lawyers and their clients to extract large financial settlements from businesses.

The new video highlights the experiences of three small businesses — a golf club cover manufacturer, instrument case manufacturer, and nutritional supplement manufacturer — served lawsuits under Proposition 65, and explains that while their products pose no reasonable risk of harm to consumers, these businesses were still forced to pay thousands in settlement costs for failing to adequately warn consumers.

Certainly, we should tell consumers whether they’re being exposed to toxic substances, but the threshold for warning under Proposition 65 is so low it’s utterly ridiculous. Consumers have no way of looking at a product with a Proposition 65 warning label and understanding their actual risk of harm. So instead of helping consumers make informed decisions impacting their health, the law has morphed into a way for trial lawyers to earn millions from business owners who fail to warn consumers of essentially nonexistent health risks.”

Newly-released figures from the California Attorney General’s office reveal businesses paid over $29 million to settle Proposition 65 lawsuits last year — a 68 percent increase from 2013. Seventy one percent of that total went to trial lawyers. Since 2000, businesses have paid more than $228 million to settle Proposition 65 lawsuits, and $150 million of that total went to plaintiffs’ attorney’s fees and costs.

As explained in the video, the cost of defending against a Proposition 65 lawsuit in court—even when a business is innocent—is so high that many small and mid-sized businesses are pressured to settle out-of-court. To ward off future lawsuits, some businesses have started putting labels on all of their products, regardless of whether they actually contain a chemical listed under Proposition 65.

It’s absurd to think consumers are actually at risk of harm from the golf club cover sitting in their garage most of the year or the case used to carry a guitar. These bounty hunter shakedowns highlight the need for California’s legislators to tackle real reform to Proposition 65. The state simply can’t continue allowing lawyers to piggyback off business owners under the guise of protecting Californians.

You can view my paper calling for reforms to Proposition 65 here.

Dr. Joseph Perrone is Chief Science Officer for the Center for Accountability in Science

Originally published by Fox and Hounds Daily

Via: California Political Review

Continue Reading....

Why Progressives Are Wrong to Revere Margaret Sanger

Margaret Sanger is a saint in the feminist church. She is a charter member of the progressive hall of fame. Liberals revere this woman who preached “race improvement” and denounced what she called “human weeds”.

Hillary Clinton glows that she is “in awe of” Sanger. She said so in 2009 upon receiving Planned Parenthood’s “highest honor” that year: its coveted Margaret Sanger Award.

Likewise effusive was Nancy Pelosi when she proudly accepted the award in 2014.

Speaking to Planned Parenthood a year earlier, President Barack Obama, hailed the organization founded by this racial eugenicist committed to creating a “race of thoroughbreds” and purging America’s “race of degenerates.”

“Thank you, Planned Parenthood,” and “God bless you,” said Obama to a giddy crowd of ecstatic women. The president commended Planned Parenthood’s “extraordinary” and “remarkable work,” and told the women they do a “great, great job.”

The love by liberals for Planned Parenthood and its founder seems to know no bounds. A professor, blogging at the New York Times, has argued for placing Margaret’s mug on the $20 bill.

And alas, even the Smithsonian, America’s museum, boasts a handsome bust of Sanger in its stately National Portrait Gallery.

>>> To read more on this topic: 13 Things You Probably Don’t Know About Planned Parenthood Founder Margaret Sanger 

Margaret is there enshrined in the Smithsonian’s vaunted “Struggle for Justice” exhibit.

This brings me to my reason for writing here today: a group of angry African-American pastors are demanding the removal of Sanger’s bust from the Smithsonian.

The letter from Ministers Taking a Stand states:

“Perhaps the Gallery is unaware that Ms. Sanger supported black eugenics, a racist attitude toward black and other minority babies, an elitist attitude toward those she regarded as ‘the feeble minded;’ speaking at a rally of Ku Klux Klan women; and communications with Hitler sympathizers. Also the notorious ‘Negro Project,’ which sought to limit, if not eliminate black births, was her brainchild.”

The pastors quote an infamous December 1939 letter from Sanger to Dr. Clarence Gamble of the Eugenics Society, where, in the context of discussing the Negro Project, Sanger wrote: “We do not want word to get out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out the idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”

The succinct, powerful statement from the pastors adds: “Despite these well-documented facts of history, her bust sits proudly in your gallery as a hero of justice. The obvious incongruity is staggering!”

Amen to that.

Via: Daily Caller

Continue Reading......

[VIDEO] 'On The Record' Exclusive: Inside the Company in Charge of Hillary's Server

Via: Fox News

[VIDEO] Hillary Campaign Defends Against Emails: It’s Fine, Trust Us

Hillary Clinton’s press secretary Brian Fallon released a video Friday responding to Tweets regarding Hillary’s private email server, saying John Boehner is “dead wrong” in asserting that Clinton is under criminal investigation.

Thursday, U.S. District Court judge Emmet Sullivan stated in regards to Hillary Clinton, “We wouldn’t be here today if this employee had followed government policy.”

Brian Fallon: When John Boehner tells you that Hillary Clinton is under criminal investigation for mishandling of classified emails, he is dead wrong. Number one, the Justice Department, itself has said that this is a noncriminal inquiry. Number two, Hillary Clinton herself is not the target. Number three, in every case that has surfaced to date, the State Department has said that none of the information was classified at the time it was sent.

Via: Daily Caller

Continue Reading....

[VIDEO] 2 Armed Thugs Picked The WRONG Store To Rob And Paid A Massive Price For It

ADVISORY: The video associated with this post contains graphic images that may be disturbing to some.

The owner of an auto parts shop in Oakland Park, Fla., shifted into “no-way” gear earlier this week when he bravely turned the tables on would-be armed robbers, wrestling a gun away from one of the hold-up men and shooting him with his own weapon.

The whole incredible incident was caught on chilling surveillance video released by detectives.

Police say that both the shop owner and the man who tried to rob the business suffered gunshot wounds in the scuffle. But while the man who owns the shop is expected to survive his wound, the accused gunman — who has been charged with attempted murder — remains hospitalized with life-threatening injuries.

An accomplice escaped the scene and is now the focus of a manhunt.

Via: Western Journalism

Continue Reading....

Oversight Committee Blasts IRS Commissioner Koskinen in GIF-Filled Press Release

The House Oversight Committee has just issued a press release: “How IRS Commissioner Koskinen Has Failed in 12 GIFs.” Using GIFs - animated images from films and television - the release outlines the case against IRS Commissioner John Koskinen, who has been under fire for his response to investigations into the IRS treatment of conservative non-profit groups.

Koskinen, the press release says, failed to: comply with a congressional subpoena; preserve and produce Lois Lerner’s emails; implement internal preservation as ordered by the IRS Chief Technology Officer; ensure that documents were properly preserved; produce thousands of emails that are relevant to the case; acknowledge missing emails; testify truthfully. 

Next to each item is an appropriate GIF: Sheldon from “The Big Bang Theory” tossing papers in the air, George Costanza winking, Rachel Maddow crying FAIL!, Ryan Gosling shrugging.

“The GIFs convey that wrongdoing was done but clearly they don’t care,” M.J. Henshaw, the Press Secretary for House Oversight Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), told CNS News. “No one’s going to read a bunch of text, but they will read something with a picture of Ryan Gosling. This is a cohesive, simple and easy to understand way for people who may not fully understand all the details. Our biggest challenge is to take these hugely complicated investigations and dwindling them down so that people who may not be as involved can understand them.”

In July Rep. Chaffetz called for Koskinen to be fired. 

Via: CNS News

Continue Reading....

Obama's approval rating falls in new poll

Over half of Americans have soured on President Obama’s overall presidency, a new poll says.

The new CNN/ORC sampling released on Friday said that 51 disapprove of Obama’s role in the Oval Office, compared to 47 percent approving.

It said that 52 percent believe Obama’s policies are leading the U.S. down the wrong path.

Obama’s ratings have fallen since last month, it added, when 49 percent approved of his presidential performance and 47 percent did not. 

Respondents rated Obama’s strategy for the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) the most harshly, the CNN/ORC survey said.

It found that 62 percent of Americans believe the president is not properly countering the terrorist organization.

Nearly the same amount — 60 percent — also believe the U.S. is taking the wrong approach with Iran, it said.

Obama’s renewed push to close  the U.S.-run detention facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba also meets with majority opposition.

CNN/ORC’s sampling said that 53 percent believe the prison should remain open, while 44 percent think it deserves closure once its prisoners are transferred elsewhere.

Obama fared better among respondents on the issue of climate change, with 47 approving of his handling of the issue, a boost of six points since May.

Americans are frustrated with both political parties overall. Republicans received higher disapproval ratings of 54 percent. In addition, 55 percent said their policies are wrong for the nation. Democrats, meanwhile, received 47 percent approval versus 48 percent disapproval.

CNN/ORC conducted its latest survey by telephone Aug.13-16 nationwide. It sampled 1,001 adults with a 3 percent margin of error. 

Via: The Hill

Continue Reading....

Trump Bashes $4 Billion In IRS Refunds To Illegals

President Obama and Donald Trump see immigration differently. The President’s aggressive executive action on immigration is still being litigated, and Mr. Trump proposes action of a different kind. In the meantime, tax credits and refunds for illegal immigrants have become controversial. Mr. Trump says illegal immigrants get $4.2 billion in tax credits. He can point to a 2011 audit by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration. It confirms that individuals who are not authorized to work in the United States were paid $4.2 billion in refundable credits.

It sounds crazy, and yet one source says Trump is the one being unfair, taking this out of context, and not counting their taxes paid. Bear in mind that undocumented immigrants cannot legitimately get Social Security numbers. However, they can file taxes with an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number or ITIN. They are not supposed to get the Earned Income Tax Credit, but they can receive the additional child tax credit.

That, rather than Mr. Trump, is the culprit. Mr. Trump might also point out the arguably bigger flap over the illegal immigrants whose status would be legitimized under the President’s executive action. That boondoggle is arguably even bigger, involving the Earned Income Tax Credit. Yet, it is the same refundable tax credit responsible for billions in fraudulent refunds. 

The recipe goes like this. First, get a Social Security Number, then claim the Earned Income Tax Credit for the last three years. Then, wait for the IRS to send you three years of tax refunds. The gambit could apparently work even if you never paid taxes, never filed a return, and worked off the books. And the IRS says this is the way the Earned Income Tax Credit works.

Cautious IRS Commissioner Koskinen himself explained the seemingly bizarre result to Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa). Illegal immigrants covered by the President’s amnesty deal can claim back tax credits for work they performed illegally, even if they never filed a tax return during those years. This written response clarified the IRS chief’s earlier statements, confirming that illegals can get back taxes.

Earlier this year, Mr. Koskinen said that to claim a refund, an illegal immigrant would need to have filed past tax returns. Yet the IRS chief later corrected himself and said that they can claim the money even if they never filed tax returns in the past. According to the IRS, illegal immigrants granted amnesty and Social Security numbers can claim up to three years of back tax credits.

The IRS says a 2000 Chief Counsel Advice on this issue is correct. With the amnesty, illegal immigrants could receive tens of thousands of dollars in tax refunds. Calling the three year tax refund perk a mockery of the law, Senator Grassley noted that illegals would be able to claim billions of dollars in tax benefits.Although the President hasn’t backed down, U.S. Rep. Patrick McHenry introduced the No Free Rides Act. The bill would not stop illegal immigrants from filing tax returns, but would prohibit those workers from using the Earned Income Tax Credit.

“My bill is a direct result of the (IRS) announcement,” said McHenry. “It’s very simple. If you’re not here legally, you should not be able to access the Earned Income Credit. It’s for the American taxpayers who are trying to make ends meet.” Rep. McHenry noted that even if undocumented workers were employed in the past, many may have used Social Security numbers that didn’t belong to them.

“President Obama’s immigration action giving millions of illegal immigrants Social Security numbers marked an unprecedented executive overreach,” said McHenry. “Now, we learn that these same people, whose first act on American soil was breaking our laws, might be eligible for up to $24,000 in tax credits. This is simply unacceptable. By introducing the No Free Rides Act we ensure these illegal immigrants will not receive any more benefits intended to help American families.”

Congressman Sam Johnson (R-TX) has also reintroduced his No Social Security Numbers and Benefits For Illegal Aliens Act.

Via: Forbes

Continue Reading.....

Is this woman the new Lois Lerner?

As some at the Federal Election Commission seek to broaden the power of the agency, critics are arguing that it's beginning to look increasingly like the Internal Revenue Service under Lois Lerner, who has been accused of using her office for partisan purposes.

They take special aim at the commission's Democratic chairwoman, Ann Ravel, who also served as chairwoman of California's equivalent to the FEC, the Fair Political Practices Commission, before coming to Washington in 2013. Ravel has lambasted the commission as "dysfunctional" because votes on enforcement issues have often resulted in ties, and she has said the commission should go beyond its role of enforcing election laws by doing more to get women and minorities elected to political office. She has complained that super PACs are "95 percent run by white men," and that as a result, "the people who get the money are generally also white men."

To remedy those problems, Ravel sponsored a forum at the FEC in June to talk about getting more women involved in the political process. She has also proposed broadening disclosure laws to diminish the role of outside spending, and suggested that the FEC should claim authority to regulate political content on the Web. She's also voiced support for eliminating one member of the commission in order to create a partisan majority that doesn't have tie votes, saying in an interview with Roll Call, "I think it would help."

Hans von Spakovsky, who served on the FEC from 2006-2008, takes issue with Ravel's effort to go beyond the traditional purview of the commission's functions. "The FEC has one duty, and one duty only — to enforce the existing campaign finance laws. It has no business trying to 'encourage' or 'discourage' folks to get involved in politics, no matter who they are, minority or otherwise," Spakovsky told theWashington Examiner.

Spakovsky also said it would be contrary to the function of the FEC to limit the number of commissioners. "The fact that any action by the FEC requires the votes of four commissioners, and thus bipartisan agreement, ensures that its investigations are based on enforcing the law evenly, without regard to the party a particular candidate is a member of. Ravel wants to end that, which would allow the FEC to be used for partisan political witch hunts," Spakovsky said.

Ravel did not respond to a request for comment.

The votes on which the commission ties often pertain to alleged violations by the third-party groups known as super political action committees. Super PACs have no contribution limit and no spending limit as long as they do not "coordinate" with the candidates for whom they are spending. The FEC defines this as "payment made in cooperation with, at the suggestion of, or per an understanding with a candidate." Critics of those groups say they often circumvent the law by straddling the definition of coordination.

Ravel co-signed a letter with fellow Democratic Commissioner Ellen Weintraub in June, saying the spending that those groups engage in on behalf of candidates should count toward the spending limit for those candidates. "There is this basic notion that super PACs are supposed to be separate from the candidates," Weintraub has said. "[Voters] look at what's going on, and they say: 'This doesn't look separate. Where are the lines?'"

The Wall Street Journal's editorial board has compared Ravel to the IRS' Lerner, who's also been accused of using her office to push a political agenda. "We'll take our chances with donations freely given than with the arbitrary and partisan rulings of Lois Lerner at the IRS or Ann Ravel at the Federal Election Commission," the editorial board wrote.

Via: Washington Examiner

Continue Reading.....

10 States and Washington, D.C., Issue Driver’s Licenses to Illegal Immigrants

Ten states and the District of Columbia now issue driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants as of the summer of 2015, according to a report from the Pew Charitable Trusts.

California, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, Vermont, and Washington, as well as Washington, D.C,, issue driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants. The states are estimated to have an illegal immigrant population of 4,120,000 combined.

The report says that nearly 37 percent of illegal immigrants live in an area where they may obtain a license.

The decision to allow illegal immigrants to obtain driver’s licenses is made at the state level and debates about issuing licenses often address the impact on public safety, insurance, and accident rates.

For instance, many states reported that applicants had difficulty passing written tests and needed to take them several times before they did so.

Illegal immigrants are undocumented, which raises the specter of fraud; some holders might have used false identities, addresses, or documents to obtain their licenses.

In addition to public safety and fraud issues, there are also higher costs associated with offering these licenses.

“The number of potential applicants affects staffing and facility needs, license processing and issuance, and expected costs and revenue,” states Pew. “The cost of new personnel was the largest anticipated expense.” The report found that California, Illinois, Connecticut, Maryland, Colorado, Nevada, and the District of Columbia created an additional 1,039 positions because of the policy.

“California’s fiscal summary estimated costs of approximately $140 million to $220 million and application fee revenue of approximately $50 million over three years,” states Pew. “The state’s 2014-15 budget allocated $67.4 million to issue licenses to unauthorized immigrants and included a mechanism for increasing funding if the number of applicants proved unexpectedly high.”

States also must factor in costs associated with changes to computer systems and programming to allow for this new policy. “Colorado reported that it undertook major programmatic and computer system changes to be able to accept new types of documents,” Pew states. “The state’s fiscal note estimated a one-time information technology cost of over $425,000 to reprogram its computer system.”

Via: WFB

Continue Reading....

State Dept.: Hey, we never issued a computer to Hillary

I guess this shouldn’t be surprising when you think about it. If Hillary was using a homebrew server for all her e-mails, she’d have to get State Department IT help to set up the account on a government-issued computer, right? We already know Hillary wasn’t too interested in getting government IT staff mixed up in her personal any type of her business. So why even bother to issue Hillary a computer when she wasn’t going to use it anyway? You think she was going to sit there and do work on it?

No way. Hillary was going to use her own device connected to her own server. You try to get away with that at your job and tell me how it goes, but we all know the rules don’t apply to America’s self-styled royalty:

As the guy from CNET explains, (video below) this only further exacerbates the security problems inherent in Hillary’s makeshift IT scheme. Anyone who’s ever used a work-issued computer understands this. Your employer orders the computer and has it prepared in certain ways to be compatible with what’s expected of you in your job. That will include the pre-loading of certain security software and possible blocking software. And in the case of the government, it apparently also includes a rather sophisticated process for marking classified material. In response to a recent column, reader UCrawford, who appears to have some knowledge about this, explained:

Classified and unclassified information are on separate servers entirely. Information classified as SECRET, for example, would never be processed on an unclassified system not rated to handle classification. You can move unclassified data up to a classified system through transferable media fairly easily (the media would have to be approved and scanned for viruses, malware, etc). But for classified data to move down to an unclassified system, it’s not just about removing markings and doing a virus scan on the thumbdrive…the data itself would have to be scrubbed of all classified references/sources/information, approved through a declassification authority, and transferred to an entirely different portable media (any unclassified thumb drive plugged into a TOP SECRET system, for example, would automatically be classified TOP SECRET and could never be plugged into an unclassified system again). It’s a cumbersome process and most requests to declassify current TS data (which she’s accused of having on her system) are automatically rejected because the chance of spillage is so great. And nobody would authorize TS data that hadn’t been scrubbed to go to a unclassified government system…and especially not a personal system. Would never happen.

If Clinton had multiple instances of TS data on her unencrypted personal server, there’s simply no way it was ever approved for transfer. Zero chance of that being a simple mistake or someone just deleting classification markings. They would have a) had to have been given access to a classified network (meaning they were briefed on proper procedure, thoroughly and repeatedly), b) put some kind of portable media into the network (illegal unless approved by the security officer…which is very unlikely), and c) downloaded classified data to it, removing the portion markings (highly illegal…and clearly explained as such to anyone with a clearance). Most people would be arrested and charged immediately for doing that if caught. In most cases, the server would be immediately seized as soon as it was recognized that classified data had been placed on it. And Clinton would have been briefed on proper procedure about classified as well, and is responsible for the behavior of all people operating under her instructions. There is zero chance she did not know that transferring data to her home server was illegal…procedure is spelled out in every single document she signed for her clearance and access.

Via: Canada Free Press

Continue Reading.... 

[VIDEO] High-level federal employees used work Internet systems to join Ashley Madison

WASHINGTON –  Hundreds of U.S. government employees -- including some with sensitive jobs in the White House, Congress and law enforcement agencies -- used Internet connections in their federal offices to access and pay membership fees to the cheating website Ashley Madison, The Associated Press has learned.

The AP traced many of the accounts exposed by hackers back to federal workers. They included at least two assistant U.S. attorneys; an information technology administrator in the Executive Office of the President; a division chief, an investigator and a trial attorney in the Justice Department; a government hacker at the Homeland Security Department and another DHS employee who indicated he worked on a U.S. counterterrorism response team.

Few actually paid for their services with their government email accounts. But AP traced their government Internet connections -- logged by the website over five years -- and reviewed their credit-card transactions to identify them. They included workers at more than two dozen Obama administration agencies, including the departments of State, Defense, Justice, Energy, Treasury, Transportation and Homeland Security. Others came from House or Senate computer networks.

The AP is not naming the government subscribers it found because they are not elected officials or accused of a crime.

Hackers this week released detailed records on millions of people registered with the website one month after the break-in at Ashley Madison's parent company, Toronto-based Avid Life Media Inc. The website -- whose slogan is, "Life is short. Have an affair" -- is marketed to facilitate extramarital affairs.

Many federal customers appeared to use non-government email addresses with handles such as "sexlessmarriage," "soontobesingle" or "latinlovers." Some Justice Department employees appeared to use pre-paid credit cards to help preserve their anonymity but connected to the service from their office computers.

"I was doing some things I shouldn't have been doing," a Justice Department investigator told the AP. Asked about the threat of blackmail, the investigator said if prompted he would reveal his actions to his family and employer to prevent it. "I've worked too hard all my life to be a victim of blackmail. That wouldn't happen," he said. He spoke on condition of anonymity because he was deeply embarrassed and not authorized by the government to speak to reporters using his name.

The AP's analysis also found hundreds of transactions associated with Department of Defense networks, either at the Pentagon or from armed services connections elsewhere.

Defense Secretary Ash Carter confirmed the Pentagon was looking into the list of people who used military email addresses. Adultery can be a criminal offense under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Via: Fox News

Continue Reading....