New Clinton Classified Emails Discovered

Advisor Sid Blumenthal Writes: ‘Serious Trouble for Libyan Rebels’

 

Judicial Watch

(Washington, DC) — Judicial Watch today released 109 pages of new Hillary Clinton emails from her tenure as secretary of state. The documents include two email exchanges classified confidential and a 2011 exchange with Sid Blumenthal about “serious trouble for the Libyan rebels.”

The newly-produced emails were part of 72,000 pages of documents the FBI recovered last year in its investigation into Clinton’s use of an unsecure, non-government email system. The records include emails Hillary Clinton attempted to delete or did not otherwise disclose.

Two heavily redacted emails marked Classified Confidential included a November 2011 exchange under the Subject: “Egyptian MFA on Hamas-PLO talks,” and a June 28, 2011 email from Clinton to Abedin in which Clinton writes “I have now promised the Kuwaiti PM 3 times that I will deliver an address at the Oxford Islamic Center. Pls be sure that’s on the list for next Fall/next year.”

On March 9, 2011, Sid Blumenthal emailed Clinton about the situation in Libya, with the subject line “H: serious trouble for Libyan rebels. Sid” The email discusses urging leaders of the National Libyan Council (NLC) “to consider hiring private troops (mercenaries) to support, organize, and train the rebel forces in Libya.” Blumenthal adds that “a small number of private troops could turn the battle against Qaddafi’s forces, particularly if they are equipped with sophisticated anti-aircraft weapons.” Clinton asks former aide Huma Abedin to “print for me w/o any identifiers”.

The Washington Times reported Libyan officials were deeply concerned in 2011 that Clinton was responsible for weapons being funneled to NATO-backed rebels in Libya with ties to al Qaeda.

On October 6, 2009, Clinton’s then-Chief of Staff, Cheryl Mills emailsI am purposefully on gmail” to Abedin and Maggie Williams, former campaign manager for Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign. [Emphasis added] Mills was responding to an October 4, 2009, email from Clinton, most of which was redacted.

On January 6, 2012, Clinton can be seen “expediting” a citizenship request so the requestor can get a government job in policy or law enforcement:

I am told by Citizenship and Immigration (CIS) caseworkers that it may be at least another 8 months before they get to me, making the total time more than a year (they advertise 6 months total turnaround time).

Would you consider helping me by reaching out to DHS Secretary Napolitano or CIS Director Alejandro Mayorkas who reports to her on my behalf? The ask is to simply consider moving up my applications for review ASAP. My application is complete, straight forward and I have nothing to hide.”

Clinton responds: “I’m copying Huma [Abedin] and asking her to see if we can help expedite this for you because we want you to be a citizen as soon as possible! I’ve got my fingers crossed.  Happy New Year–H”

On August 4, 2009, Terrence Duffy, a donor to the Clinton Foundation and executive chairman of the derivatives giant CME Group, asks Clinton for her assistance in setting up meetings with Asian leaders.

I am planning a trip to Asia for October 3-10. While there, I will be traveling to Beijing, Tokyo, Hong Kong and Singapore and I was wondering if there is any way you could help set up a meeting or 2 with some elected officials in any of those regions. Once again, you’re doing an amazing job and all of America is very fortunate to have you as our Secretary of State.”

Clinton responds: “Terry–I’m emailing from Capetown [sic], one of my favorite cities in the world. I’m copying your email to Huma so she can follow up w you regarding your Asia trip. Hope you’re well. All the best, H”

Judicial Watch previously reported that Duffy had also asked Clinton in September to arrange “government appointments” for his October trip. Duffy gave $4,600 to Hillary’s 2008 presidential campaign; in November 2013 CME Group paid Hillary Clinton a $225,000 speaking fee and has donated between $5,001 and 10,000 to the Clinton Foundation.

In November 2016, the State Department was ordered to produce no less than 500 pages of records a month to Judicial Watch. Judicial Watch filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit in May 2015 after the State Department failed to respond to a March 18, 2015, FOIA request (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:15-cv-00687)). The lawsuit seeks:

  • All emails sent or received by former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton in her official capacity as secretary of State, as well as all emails by other State Department employees to Secretary Clinton regarding her non-“state.gov” email address.

Under the current pace of production, the Clinton emails and other records won’t fully be available for possible release until at least 2020.

“These new Clinton emails add to the pile of evidence demonstrating the need for a serious criminal investigation of Hillary Clinton and her associates,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “It is shameful that this State Department is releasing these Clinton emails so slowly. I trust President Trump agrees the State Department and Justice Department need to follow the rule of law and stop covering for Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration.”

These emails are also available on the State Department’s website.

The Final 3 Phases In The Slide From Freedom To Communism

https://i2.wp.com/thefederalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/1200px-October_Revolution_celebration_1983-998x673.png

The Federalist

By

As we mark the 100th anniversary of the communist takeover of Russia on November 7, 1917 (October 25, according to the old Russian calendar at the time), it’s worth pondering how the road to communism is paved. After all, its legacy is the murder of more than 100 million victims in the twentieth century alone. What mileposts or trends might we identify on the twisted road to communism?

Obviously there are different factors at play in different cultures and eras. Russia at the time was on a path to great economic and social reforms. But the instability and suffering caused especially by Russia’s involvement in World War I created a window of opportunity for violent overthrow. Vladimir Lenin seized upon this immediately when he arrived out of exile in April that year to fire up the crowds in Saint Petersburg.

Once communism gained a foothold in Russia, it doomed its citizens to lives of scarcity, misery, social distrust, terror, and mass murder. The same goes for China. Mao Zedong, Pol Pot, the Castros, Che Guevara, Joseph Stalin, the Kims of North Korea—all of them were brutal dictators enabled by a system that always places too much power into the hands of too few people. It’s a corrupt and cruel system that allows an elite oligarchy—which Lenin called a “vanguard”—to enslave the entire population.

Continue reading

Constitutional Lawyer: Yes, Obama’s Affordable Care Act Subsidy Provision Was Illegal

Townhall.com

by Matt Vespa

There’s are a lot of liberals frothing at the mouth over the Trump administration’s decision to end the unconstitutional subsidies to insurance companies under the Affordable Care Act last week. The subsidies were given to insurance companies to help offset costs from lower-income individuals concerning deductibles and other out-of-pocket expenses. It’s meant to prevent premium spikes. And the termination of this subsidy is not just a conservative view or action item, by the way. It’s the opinion of the courts, as the LA Times reported back in May of 2016–it’s unconstitutional:

House Republicans won Round 2 in a potentially historic lawsuit Thursday when a federal judge declared the Obama administration was unconstitutionally spending money to subsidize health insurers without obtaining an appropriation from Congress.

Last year, U.S. District Court Judge Rosemary Collyer broke new ground by ruling the GOP-controlled House of  Representatives had legal standing to sue the president over how he was enforcing his signature healthcare law.

On Thursday, she ruled the administration is violating a provision of the law by paying promised reimbursements to health insurers who provide coverage at reduced costs to low-income Americans.

The judge’s ruling, while a setback for the administration, was put on hold immediately and stands a good chance of being overturned on appeal.

Well, it prompted 18 states to sue the Trump administration over this decision. As with the issue over the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program on immigration, it’s another example of executive overreach under Obama, bypassing Congress on issues that only the legislative branch can legally resolve. Josh Blackman elaborated on this subsidy provision in National Review back in July:

In 2014, a federal judge concluded that with the so-called OPM fix, the “executive branch has rewritten a key provision of the ACA so as to render it essentially meaningless in order to save members of Congress and their staffs.” Allowing the administration to rewrite the law, he wrote, “would be a violation of Article I of the Constitution, which reposes the lawmaking power in the legislative branch.” However, because the plaintiffs in the lawsuit (Senator Ron Johnson and one of his staffers) were not personally injured by OPM’s policy — indeed they benefited — the case was dismissed for lack of standing. While the Obama administration was content to make these illegal payments, the Trump administration should halt them.

Congress is not the only beneficiary of such illegal largess. The ACA employed two strategies to make health insurance more affordable. Section 1401 of the law provides for the payment of subsidies to consumers to reduce premiums. Section 1402 provides payments to insurers to offset certain “cost sharing” fees, such as deductibles and co-pays. But while the ACA funds the subsidies under Section 1401 with a permanent appropriation, to date, Congress has not provided an annual appropriation for the cost-sharing subsidies under Section 1402.

Once again, where Congress would not act, President Obama did so unilaterally. The executive branch pretended that the ACA had actually funded Section 1402 all along, and it paid billions of dollars to insurers. Once again, Mr. Trump is exactly right that this is a “BAILOUT.” And, once again, the payments are a violation of the separation of powers.

Now, we have Jonathan Turley, a constitutional scholar at the George Washington University Law School, reiterating the point that the Obamacare subsidy provision was unconstitutional with Fox News’ Bret Baier last Friday. Turley added that the court ruling made it clear that you have to play within the confines of the U.S. Constitution, and that even benevolent reasons are not good enough to usurp the rule of law  (via RCP):

Can the president get away with stopping ObamaCare payments?

BRET BAIER, SPECIAL REPORT: Can the president stop Obamacare subsidies? … You’re also the lead counsel for the U.S. House of Representatives in the challenge to the actions by the Obama administration to set up these subsidies in a court case that ended in victory. So, this is a Constitutional move.JONATHAN TURLEY, GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY LAW PROFESSOR: The original order that has just been rescinded was unconstitutional by finding of a federal court. The court found it not only violated Article One of the Constitution, it violated the health care law itself. Because Congress had the ability to grant subsidies under the federal law but it chosen not to. In fact, the administration had come to Congress and asked for this money and Congress said no. And then the president say alright, I’ll just order it directly from the Treasury. Well, you can’t do that. The defining power of Congress is the power of the purse. And the federal judge issued a historic ruling and said this is wrong, you can’t violate the Constitution no matter what your motivations are, no matter what you’re complaining about with Congress, you have to play within the rules of the Constitution.

USA’s End of the Road Carefully Crafted for Decades

Family Security Matters

The takeover of the USA had been carefully crafted for many years.  When, then, 57-year-old George Washington was to take office on 30 April 1789, no one in the just-formed government of the United States knew what to call their newly elected leader.  Some were even suggesting Monarchical titles. With all thanks to God, those on the side of the still-being-formed Republic chose the title President of the United States.  Since that time, however, there have been multiple attempts to turn the country into something resembling an Autocracy.  Extreme measures began with President Woodrow Wilson (1913-1921) who was the country’s first fully “progressive” (our first Communist president or Communist leaning at best) president of the United States.  Then, there was Roger Nash Baldwin (founder of the ACLU) who openly expressed his love for everything about the Soviet Union’s form of a Marxist (Communist) totalitarian government.  We elected liberal and progressive Franklin Delano Roosevelt who was our president from March 4, 1933 – April 12, 1945.  Note:  I don’t think it was until Ronald Reagan’s presidency (January 20, 1981 – January 20, 1989) that we finally extricated ourselves from the majority of Roosevelt’s damaging policies, while a few have still made it to present day.  We have had a number of liberals/progressives/leftists elected the office of POTUS.  However, none were-arguably-quite as damaging as was the presidency of Barack Hussein Obama and his team.

Continue reading

The Emerging New World

Family Security Matters

by HERBERT LONDON

 

It is clear that the free exchange of opinion that once characterized university life is now being challenged. The avatars of social justice have arrogated to themselves the role of arbiter in the university curriculum. But it hasn’t stopped there. Now monuments of the past are being put through the probity of present standards as one statue after another is in jeopardy of tumbling. Here is a foreshadowing of a “new America”, one in which the evils of the past are to be redressed by the self-appointed czars of the moment.

Where this ends isn’t clear, but I have a strong belief that the revolutionaries in our midst are intent on altering the Constitution converting it into a Red Book of acceptable and unacceptable behavior.

After all, for many the First Amendment is in tatters already. Free speech no longer exists for unpopular speech or “hate speech,” even though it is precisely unpopular expression that the Constitution protects. Hate speech is loathsome, but it is protected speech precisely because any line drawn against it is arbitrary and subject to the will of the censors. Like many, I was appalled at the anticipated Nazi march through Skokie, Illinois (which never happened), but I defended the right of these barbarians to do so as First Amendment expression. As I see it, the danger of censorship was greater than the psychological damage of ugly expression.

For many Americans, the Second Amendment protecting citizens to bear arms must be modified or erased. In the minds of these revisionists guns are the problem fomenting violence in our cities. Despite the obvious point that a gun isn’t a weapon in the hands of St. Francis, but is dangerous if wielded by a felon intent on criminal behavior, gun baners rarely make distinctions.

The Fifth Amendment guarantees that due process will accompany legal charges, indictments or the sequestration of property; in other words life, liberty and property cannot be arbitrarily denied without a legal process that assures the rights of the victim. However, at many universities the due process clause is only honored in the breach. It is often sufficient for an allegation of rape or sexual abuse to be made before the accused is found culpable. Reputations are sometimes destroyed on the basis of empty allegations, but kangaroo courts of this kind have proliferated throughout higher education.

The Tenth Amendment gives to the states the powers that remain without enumeration in the other Amendments. Hence education is one such area that accrues to the state governments. Unfortunately, teachers’ unions want to consolidate power through national organizations and have been pressing in recent years for authority to be vested in the Department of Education exclusively. It is a clear and undeviating attack on federalism which has central and state governments sharing power. For extremists, the mitigating influence of the states is unnecessary.

In the aggregate these reforms and reformers constitute a revolutionary force. Their goal is to shift the organs of national power. They intend to use the vulnerability of the moment to espouse a newly created nation from the political graveyard of the past. America’s Red Guard will determine what one can believe and what is unacceptable. The Color Guard will carry the black flag of revolution and the Founders will be interred for their regressive ideas.

Welcome Comrades to the New World. You have nothing to lose, but your chains. Of course, there are chains you will wear that will be dispensed by the Party. Those who resist will be relieved of all they love. For even love itself is retrograde; either one believes, or one is ostracized. Tolerance is weakness, hate is intensity and good will is cowardice.

The world will be turned upside down with many wishing they were facing downward. For those who have seen signals of the New World, it is a dark place bereft of an enlightened Constitution.

 

DACA Was Only One Part of Obama’s Seizure of Congressional Power

American Thinker

By Michael Bargo, Jr.

 

The DACA program being terminated by AG Sessions was a Federal program started by President Obama. The program was promoted as an administrative strategy to provide eligible youth relief from deportation.  Since the entire issue has been clouded with political rhetoric it’s important to look at its legal and constitutional status.

The DACA program was started when on November 20, 2014 President Obama issued an Executive Order.  It’s important to note that the US Constitution does not allow any president to set immigration policy.  Since the DACA EO was directed to delay deportation of illegal immigrants it clearly falls under the authority of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, and those Federal rules can only be passed by Congress.  The Constitution clearly states in Article I Section 8 clause 3 that only the Congress shall have power “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.”   It further states that all legislative powers shall reside in Congress, which shall be composed of a House of Representatives and a Senate.

The power to establish any rules regarding immigration do not reside in the office of President and never have.  So, at this point the question is moot: President Obama did not have any authority to issue a DACA order through any “executive action.”

President Obama himself stated twenty-two times that he has no authority over issues of immigration.  This then means he can’t unilaterally change any immigration laws.  But President Obama’s entire presidency was an exercise in executive overreach, and several of the changes he made to immigration law were overturned by the Supreme Court.

It’s important to understand that whether or not one agrees with what President Obama does about immigration is irrelevant: he has no authority under the Constitution to write or rewrite, or amend, the rules of immigration passed by Congress such as the 1996 Illegal Reform and Immigration Responsibility Act. What President Obama frequently did during his presidency was go around Congress and write his own laws by changing the application of existing law through new regulations and rules.  He has no more authority to change laws through bureaucratic rule changes than he does to pass a law.

Continue reading