Breaking: FBI Will Make A HUGE Move Against Hillary Rodham Clinton

13 Mars 2016

This is bombshell announcement! Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX) just shared damning news for Hillary Clinton on The Steve Malzberg Show just now:

The FBI is ready to indict Hillary Clinton and if its recommendation isn’t followed by the U.S. attorney general, the agency’s investigators plan to blow the whistle and go public with their findings, former U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay tells Newsmax TV.

“I have friends that are in the FBI and they tell me they’re ready to indict,” DeLay said Monday on “The Steve Malzberg Show.”

“They’re ready to recommend an indictment and they also say that if the attorney general does not indict, they’re going public.”

Clinton is under FBI investigation for her use of a private server to conduct confidential government business while she was secretary of state. But some Republicans fear any FBI recommendation that hurts Clinton will be squashed by the Obama administration.
DeLay, a Texas Republican and Washington Times radio host, said:

“One way or another either she’s going to be indicted and that process begins, or we try her in the public eye with her campaign. One way or another she’s going to have to face these charges.”

Team Hillary is already admitting this will likely happen. Amazingly, the Clinton campaign has been busy accusing Obama’s intelligence Inspector General, Charles McCullough, of coordinating releases of information to help Republicans. (!) McCullough’s investigations found Clinton was sharing documents which were “beyond top secret”… a crime that should not only disqualify Hillary Clinton from the White House, but should carry a lengthy prison sentence!

Here is Tom DeLay sharing the major news:

What do you think about the FBI being ready to indict Hillary Clinton? Please leave us a comment (below) and tell us what you think.

 

Fact checking the Hillary Clinton email controversy – The Washington Post

 

 

 What you need to know about Hillary Clinton’s emails

The State Department has finished releasing more than 30,000 emails from Hillary Clinton’s time as Secretary of State. Catch up on the controversy and read the emails below. Related story: Clinton, on her private server, wrote 104 emails the government says are classified

By The Washington Post- Updated March 5, 2016

The authors who wrote emails now deemed classified

The Washington Post analyzed all 52,000 pages of Hillary Clinton’s correspondence released by the State Department over the past nine months. The Post found that 1,789 individual emails were classified as a result of the State Department’s review process. They were authored by 299 different people. The authors included Clinton and members of her inner circle, but also long-tenured diplomats and others. The 10 individuals who authored the most emails with classified redactions:

Jacob Sullivan – 215

Director of policy planning during Clinton’s tenure

Jeffrey D. Feltman – 124

Assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs

Feltman currently serves as the Under Secretary of Political Affairs at the United Nations. Before that, he was a foreign service officer since 1986. He served as U.S. ambassador to Lebanon from 2004 to 2008.

Hillary Clinton  –  104

Former secretary of state and Democratic presidential candidate

William Burns – 60

Deputy secretary of state

David M. Hale – 53

Special envoy, deputy envoy for Middle East peace

 Daniel B. Shapiro – 48

White House national security staffer/U.S. ambassador to Israel

Melanne Verveer -48

U.S. ambassador for global women’s issues

Verveer is currently the executive director of the Georgetown Institute for Women, Peace and Security. Close to Clinton, she served as chief of staff to Clinton while she was first lady.

Philip H. Gordon – 45

Assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs

After leaving his State Department post in 2013, Gordon worked as White House coordinator for the Middle East, North Africa, and the Gulf region until 2015. He is currently a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.

Cheryl D. Mills -Chief of staff  – 28

Mills was one of Clinton’s closest aides. A lawyer, Mills served as deputy White House counsel under President Bill Clinton. She then served as an administrator and counsel at New York University before working for Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign. She is currently in the private sector but remains a confidante to Clinton.

Huma Abedin -Deputy chief of staff

Abedin has worked for Clinton since serving as a White House intern assigned to her in 1996. She worked for Clinton while she was a senator from New York. She is the vice chairwoman of Clinton’s 2016 campaign and frequently travels with Clinton.

Jacob Sullivan – 215 emails

Director of policy planning during Clinton’s tenure

Was often a go-between for diplomats in the field and the secretary of state. After Clinton left the State Department in 2013, Sullivan became an aide to Vice President Biden. He is now a foreign policy adviser to Clinton’s presidential campaign and a visiting lecturer at Yale Law School.

 

Jeffrey D. Feltman

Assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs – 124 emails

 

Feltman currently serves as the Under Secretary of Political Affairs at the United Nations. Before that, he was a foreign service officer since 1986. He served as U.S. ambassador to Lebanon from 2004 to 2008.

 

Hillary Clinton – 104 emails

Former secretary of state and Democratic presidential candidate

 

William Burns – 60 emails

Deputy secretary of state

 

Burns served as a foreign service officer for 33 years before his retirement in 2014. Previously, he had been ambassador to Russia and Jordan and assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs. He is currently the president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

David M. Hale – 53 emails

Special envoy, deputy envoy for Middle East peace

A foreign service officer since 1984, Hale is currently the U.S. ambassador to Pakistan.

He served in several roles involving the peace efforts in the Middle East under Clinton.

 

Daniel B. Shapiro  52 – emails

White House national security staffer/U.S. ambassador to Israel

 

Shapiro has been the U.S. ambassador to Israel since 2011. Before that, he was on the national security staff at the White House. He has also been a congressional staffer, focusing on foreign affairs.

 

Melanne Verveer 48 – emails

U.S. ambassador for global women’s issues

Verveer is currently the executive director of the Georgetown Institute for Women, Peace and Security. Close to Clinton, she served as chief of staff to Clinton while she was first lady.

 

Philip H. Gordon – 45

Assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs

After leaving his State Department post in 2013, Gordon worked as White House coordinator for the Middle East, North Africa, and the Gulf region until 2015. He is currently a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.

 

Cheryl D. Mills – 38 emails

Chief of staff

Mills was one of Clinton’s closest aides. A lawyer, Mills served as deputy White House counsel under President Bill Clinton. She then served as an administrator and counsel at New York University before working for Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign. She is currently in the private sector but remains a confidante to Clinton.

 

Huma Abedin – 36 emails

Deputy chief of staff

Abedin has worked for Clinton since serving as a White House intern assigned to her in 1996. She worked for Clinton while she was a senator from New York. She is the vice chairwoman of Clinton’s 2016 campaign and frequently travels with Clinton.

[Justice Dept. grants immunity to staffer who set up Clinton email server]

Where the controversy stands

What happened: Used private email server

Why it matters: Carry out State Department business while she was Secretary of State, from her private email server. Some of her correspondence was between non-government email addresses.

Records not under government control

Records not involving government email addresses were not under government control, raising issues concerning security and the State Department’s ability to follow open records laws.

Chose not to keep “personal” emails

Clinton has given 30,000 work-related emails to both the State Department and the FBI. She said she chose not to keep 31,000 others she deemed personal.

[Clinton won’t say if her server was wiped]

Emails are possibly irrecoverable

Because Clinton gave the FBI her private server, technology experts may be able to retrieve portions of the emails she did not keep. If they cannot, there may be no way to know what emails Clinton did not turn over.

Sent information now classified

The emails were not marked as “classified” at the time but do contain information now considered classified, according to the intelligence community’s inspector general.

[Top secret emails were sent on Clinton’s private account, official says]

Material not allowed on non-approved systems

Federal rules prohibit sharing classified material on non-approved or personal systems. Regulations dictate the burden is on the sender of an email to classify its security clearance level.

[State discovers hundreds more Clinton emails for release to Benghazi panel]

 

The emails that were released
Show more
 
 
 
 

“A Special Place in Hell”… For Hillary Clinton and Madeleine Albright?

By Gloria La Riva
Global Research, February 09, 2016
Liberation 7 February 2016
Region: USA
Theme: Crimes against Humanity, US NATO War Agenda
In-depth Report: IRAQ REPORT, U.S. Election

images

Hillary Clinton screaming…

130612.jpgFeatured image: Albright, a fanatical advocate for genocidal sanctions and bombing campaigns, is in no place to lecture young women on “feminism.”

I am writing as a working woman, feminist, socialist, and candidate for President of the United States, and I want to condemn in the strongest possible terms the outlandish attacks by Hillary Clinton and Madeleine Albright on any woman working in support of the political campaign of Bernie Sanders. This attack, particularly on young women who are supporting Sanders in such large numbers, is a shameful and opportunist attempt to use the historic struggle for women’s rights for the narrowest political gains.

In a desperate attempt to reverse the growing support among young women and men for her opponent in the Democratic Party primaries, Hillary Clinton has enlisted the support of notorious war monger and advocate of mass murder, Madeleine Albright.

As Clinton looked on laughing and clapping, Albright told the media on February 6: “There’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other!”

If indeed there were such a “special place,” Madeleine Albright would most assuredly be going. And going along with her would be candidate Clinton.

As UN Ambassador and the Secretary of State in the Bill Clinton regime, Albright was a fanatical advocate of the genocidal sanctions blockade that killed more than a million women, children and men in Iraq, and of the 1999 U.S./NATO bombing war against Yugoslavia.

On May 12, 1996, nearly six years into the U.S./UN sanctions, Albright was interviewed on CBS “60 Minutes” by Lesley Stahl, who had just returned from Iraq, about the impact on the Iraqi population:

Lesley Stahl: “We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that’s more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?”

U.S. Ambassador to the UN Madeleine Albright: “I think this is a very hard choice, but the price–we think the price is worth it.”

Albright’s astoundingly flippant answer was nothing less than a confession to one of the most horrific war crimes in history, indicting not just herself but all the leaders of the Bush I, Clinton and Bush II administrations who were fully aware of the lethal impact of sanctions on the people of Iraq.

In 1999, Albright played a key role in the war on Yugoslavia, engineering the failure of the negotiations that preceded the war. Albright presented the Yugoslav government with an “agreement” that would have allowed NATO to forces to occupy the entire country, with the unheard of provision that Yugoslavia would pay for the expenses of the occupation!

After the talks broke off, a “top official” (Albright) told reporters in an off-the-record session: “We intentionally set the bar too high for the Serbs to comply. They need some bombing, and that’s what they are going to get.” When the Yugoslav government predictably rejected the ultimatum disguised as a “proposal,” the bombing began and continued for three months.

Thousands of civilians were killed, wounded and made homeless. As was true in Iraq, the entire population was traumatized, with women and children most severely impacted.

Like the assault on Iraq, the attack on Yugoslavia was a war crime, a “crime against peace,” the most serious of all violations of international law, a war of aggression against another state that poses no threat to the country launching the war.

According to her own words, Hillary Clinton joined in the war chorus: “I urged him [President Clinton] to bomb.”

In 2003, Senator Clinton supported invasion and occupation of Iraq. In 2011, as Secretary of State, she was chief advocate in the Obama administration in calling for the bombing war that killed, wounded and displaced unknown numbers of Libyans and devastated the country.

After the torture and murder of Libyan leader Moammar Qaddafi, Clinton laughingly told a CBS interviewer: “We came, we saw, he died.”

Albright and Clinton thus share much in common both with each other and their far more numerous murderous male counterparts in the top levels of the U.S. imperialist state machine. That they who have worked to destroy the lives of so many millions of women would now presume to lecture young women on “feminism” and attempt to shame them into supporting Clinton is a despicable travesty.
The original source of this article is Liberation

Copyright © Gloria La Riva, Liberation, 2016

Disclaimer: The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s).  Unruly Hearts will not be responsible for any inaccurate or incorrect statement in this article.

Hillary Clinton’s Stonewalling of Peace Agreement with Libya: Bombshell Tapes Confirm Citizen Commission’s Findings on Benghazi

 

hillary-clinton-old-hag-5

Hillary Clinton, 68 yrs old

 

As Hillary Clinton further delays the announcement of her 2016 run for the White House, more news has broken regarding her role in the 2011 disastrous intervention in Libya, which set the stage for the 2012 Benghazi attacks where we lost four brave American lives.

Two new stories from The Washington Times expose some of the infighting among government agencies and branches of government on this controversial decision, and highlight the key role that Clinton played in initiating the war. You can listen to tapes of discussions between Pentagon staffers, former Representative Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), and the Qaddafi regime for yourself.

This news also validates the Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi (CCB) 2014 interim report, which exposed that Muammar Qaddafi had offered truce talks and a possible peaceful abdication to the United States, which Washington turned down.

“[The article] also makes it clear that the Benghazi investigation needs to be broadened to answer the question: ‘Why did America bomb Libya in the first place?’” commented Rear Admiral Chuck Kubic (Ret.), a key source for the CCB’s interim report who was also quoted by the Times.

“Despite the willingness of both AFRICOM Commander Gen. Carter Ham and Muammar Qaddafi to pursue the possibility of truce talks, permission was not given to Gen. Ham from his chain of command in the Pentagon and the window of opportunity closed,” reads Kubic’s statement for our report from last year. You can watch here, from a CCB press conference last April, as Admiral Kubic described his personal involvement in the effort to open negotiations between Qaddafi and the U.S. government.

Now we learn that the likely source of the stonewalling came from the State Department—and Secretary Clinton—herself. “On the day the U.N. resolution was passed, Mrs. Clinton ordered a general within the Pentagon to refuse to take a call with Gadhafi’s son Seif and other high-level members within the regime, to help negotiate a resolution, the secret recordings reveal,” reported the Times on January 29.

Former Defense Secretary Bob Gates indicated in his book, Duty, that he was opposed to the war for national security reasons. He highlighted a division among White House advisors—with Susan Rice, Ben Rhodes, and Samantha Power “urging aggressive U.S. action to prevent an anticipated massacre of the rebels as Qaddafi fought to remain in power.” Add to that list the former Secretary of State.

“But that night, with Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi’s forces turning back the rebellion that threatened his rule, Mrs. Clinton changed course, forming an unlikely alliance with a handful of top administration aides who had been arguing for intervention,” reported The New York Times on March 18, 2011, the day after UN Resolution 1973 authorizing a “no fly” zone in Libya was voted on and passed.

“Within hours, Mrs. Clinton and the aides had convinced Mr. Obama that the United States had to act, and the president ordered up military plans, which Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, hand-delivered to the White House the next day.”

The Washington Times now reports that “In the recovered recordings, a U.S. intelligence liaison working for the Pentagon told a Gadhafi aide that Mr. Obama privately informed members of Congress that Libya ‘is all Secretary Clinton’s matter’ and that the nation’s highest-ranking generals were concerned that the president was being misinformed” about a humanitarian crisis that didn’t exist. However, one must wonder just how much President Obama implicitly supported Clinton in her blind push to intervene in what was once a comparatively stable country, and an ally in the war against al Qaeda. While this new report is certainly damning of Mrs. Clinton’s actions, and appears to place the blame for the unnecessary chaos in Libya—which ultimately led to Benghazi—on her shoulders, President Obama shares the blame as the ultimate Decider-in-Chief.

“Furthermore, defense officials had direct information from their intelligence asset in contact with the regime that Gadhafi gave specific orders not to attack civilians and to narrowly focus the war on the armed rebels, according to the asset, who survived the war,” reports The Washington Times in its second of three articles. Saving those in Benghazi from a looming massacre by Qaddafi seems to have been a convenient excuse made by the administration for political expediency. Could it be, instead, that President Obama, as well as Mrs. Clinton, put greater value on the rise to power of an “Arab Spring” government with Muslim Brotherhood connections? And, as the CCB interim report shows, the U.S. government was willing to go so far as to facilitate the provision of arms to al-Qaeda-linked rebels in Libya in order to ensure that Qaddafi fell.

Will the mainstream media pick up on these new revelations, or will they cast them aside as another “phony scandal” to throw into their dustbins filled with other stories that might possibly embarrass the Obama administration, or prove to be an impediment to Mrs. Clinton’s path to the White House?

“It’s critical to note that Qaddafi was actively engaged with Department of Defense officials to arrange discussions about his possible abdication and exile when that promising development was squashed by the Obama White House,” noted CCB Member Clare Lopez, a former CIA officer, regarding the failed truce talks. “The Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi has been asking, ‘Why?’ for well over a year now.”

“It is time the American people and the families of those who fought and gave their lives at Benghazi in September 2012 were told why those brave Americans had to die at all, much less die alone with no effort made to save them,” she said.

Clinton, through House Democrats, has indicated that she is willing to testify before the House Select Committee on Benghazi. But Chairman Trey Gowdy (R-SC) recently indicated that the Committee must first examine her emails from the State Department before questioning his witness. This complicates the issue of her testifying, since Mrs. Clinton is in the process of calculating when she will announce her presidential run.

Do the emails that Gowdy has requested from the State Department even extend back to 2011?

Chairman Gowdy identified three “tranches” that his potential questioning would fall under in an interview with Fox’s Greta Van Susteren:

  • Why was the U.S. Special Mission Compound open in the first place?
  • What actions did Clinton take during the attacks?
  • What was Clinton’s role during the talking points and Susan Rice’s Sunday morning talk show visits?

A fourth tranche should be: Clinton’s push to intervene in Libya and how it set the stage for an insecure country and strong jihadist movement willing—and able—to attack the Americans posted there. And while he’s at it, Rep. Gowdy should ask Mrs. Clinton to explain why all of the very legitimate requests for increased security in Benghazi were turned down, and why were Ambassador Chris Stevens’ personal security staff, from the State Department’s Diplomatic Security Service (DSS) directed to store their weapons in a separate location—not on them—on the night of September 11, 2012?

Roger Aronoff is the Editor of Accuracy in Media, and can be contacted at roger.aronoff@aim.org.

Hillary on the brink of collapse

FOR SUNDAY NEWS: Man in suit paddling unbalanced boat, sinking boat

Man in suit paddling unbalanced boat, sinking boat

A passage from Ernest  Hemingway fits the moment. In “The Sun Also  Rises,” one character asks,  “How did you go bankrupt?” and another responds: “Two ways. Gradually, then suddenly.”

The exchange captures Hillary Clinton’s red alert. She’s been going politically bankrupt for a long time, and now faces the prospect of sudden collapse.

If she’s got a winning defense, she’d better be quick about it. The ghosts of scandals past are gaining on her and time is not on her side.

The compelling claims that she and Bill Clinton sold favors while she was secretary of state for tens of millions of dollars for themselves and their foundation don’t need to meet the legal standard for bribery. She’s on political trial in a country where Clinton Fatigue alone could be a fatal verdict.

After 25 years of corner-cutting and dishonest behavior, accumulation is her enemy. Each day threatens to deliver the straw that breaks the camel’s back. It may already have happened and we’re just waiting for public opinion to catch up to the facts.

Meanwhile, her Houdini skills are being tested big time.

Her one big advantage is obvious — she’s the only serious contender for the Democratic nomination, and she beats most GOP opponents in head-to-head matchups. But everything else weighs against her, including momentum.

Start with the fact that the sizzling reports of corrupt deals are coming from major news organizations that reliably tilt left. With supposed friends making the case against her, the tired Clinton defense that the ­attacks are partisan hit jobs has been demolished.

And after digging up so much dirt, the New York Times, the Washington Post, Politico, Reuters, Bloomberg News and others are not likely to be content with stonewalling and half-truths, especially given her recent lies about missing emails. No wonder the Times editorial page called on her to provide “straightforward answers” to the accusations.

I don’t see how she can meet that test. The outlines of cozy relationships and key transactions are not in dispute. The only issue is whether the millions the Clintons got amount to a quid pro quo.

On the face of it, that’s certainly what they look like. There are several deals we know of, and more could emerge, that put money in the Clintons’ pockets while helping businesses, including some loathsome international figures, make a killing. It is preposterous to argue that it’s all a coincidence.

Her position was further undercut when the family foundation announced it would refile five years of tax returns. In one three-year period, it omitted tens of millions in foreign contributions, reporting “zero” to the IRS. In another two-year period, it admitted to over­reporting government grants by more than $100 million.

A foundation aide described the errors as “typographical,” which is bizarre — and par for the Clinton course. To concede the errors during the firestorm must mean keeping them quiet was an even greater liability.

Sooner rather than later, Hillary will have to meet the press — but what can she possibly say to alter the story lines?

If history is a guide, she’ll insist she did nothing wrong, offer ambiguous answers to specific questions, take offense at persistent reporters and end by playing the victim. She’ll follow up with a fundraising pitch for money to keep “fighting for ­everyday Americans.”

To imagine that scenario is to realize it won’t fly, but I’m not sure what other options she has. She can’t tell the truth. It will sink her.

Nor can she credibly demand to be trusted, given her past. A recent Quinnipiac poll finds 54 percent of Americans already say Clinton is not honest or trustworthy.

Swing-state surveys show similar lopsided findings and each new sordid revelation will deepen the trust deficit. At this point in her life, it would take a near-miracle to change people’s basic view of her.

Her best hope is that a missing ­ingredient remains missing — a Democrat who could take the nomination from her, the way Barack Obama did in 2008. None of those already in the race or committed to it — Martin O’Malley, Bernie Sanders, even Joe Biden — comes close to measuring up.

The only possible rival who does is Elizabeth Warren, the fire-breathing senator from Massachusetts. Gender aside, she is everything Hillary isn’t — an anti-Wall Street conviction populist with a record to match her rhetoric.

A movement to draft her started before Hillary hit the fan, so Warren would begin with a built-in constituency. So far, though, she insists she’s not running.

Then again, that also could change suddenly.

Michael Goodwin – NY Post

The United States presidential election of 2016 will be the 58th quadrennial U.S. presidential election and is to be held on Tuesday, November 8, 2016. Voters in the election will select presidential electors, who in turn will elect a new President and Vice President of the United States. The incumbent president, Barack Obama, is ineligible to be elected to a third term due to term limits in the Twenty-second Amendment to the United States Constitution.