Indict Hillary Clinton

By Wouldlike Change
Global Research, June 01, 2016
Change.org
Region: USA
Theme: Law and Justice
In-depth Report: U.S. Elections

Hillary-RamboHillary Clinton should be immediately indicted for:

1. Obstruction of justice. If any average citizen lied to investigative officials, failed to turn over evidence, provided only selective evidence, they would be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. If any average military personnel with even the lightest of Security Clearance was in breach as Clinton clearly was, they would be prosecuted. Why are our officials not held accountable for their actions?

2. Spoliation of evidence. If any average citizen wiped the hard drive after requests from authorities to turn it over, they would be prosecuted. Why are our officials not held accountable for their actions?

3. Violaton of Federal Records Act (perhaps willful). Our officials agree to be accountable when they hold office. They also agree to comply with the Federal Records Act. Why are our officials not held accountable for their actions?

4. Violation of Espionage Act (perhaps willful). Our officials with Security Clearances agree to hold sensitive information vital to our country’s security with strict restrictions. Ignoring these restrictions should be prosecuted in full, and not doing so is treason against every American. Why are our officials not held accountable for their actions?

The Clinton Foundation ties to weapons deals should also be thoroughly investigated.

To sign petition click https://www.change.org/p/doj-indict-hillary-clinton

Breaking news: Lost emails from Clinton server discovered

 

hillary_clinton_testimony_to_house_select_committee_on_benghazi

Hillary Clinton in hot waters….

Conservative legal watchdogs have discovered new emails from Hillary Clinton’s private email server dating back to the first days of her tenure as secretary of State.

The previously undisclosed February 2009 emails between Clinton from her then-chief of staff, Cheryl Mills, raise new questions about the scope of emails from Clinton’s early days in office that were not handed over to the State Department for recordkeeping and may have been lost entirely.

 

Clinton’s presidential campaign has previously claimed that the former top diplomat did not use her personal “clintonemail.com” account before March 2009, weeks after she was sworn in as secretary of State.

But on Thursday, the watchdog group Judicial Watch released one message from Feb. 13, 2009, in which Mills communicated with Clinton on the account to discuss the National Security Agency’s (NSA) efforts to produce a secure BlackBerry device for her to use as secretary of State.  

The discovery is likely to renew questions about Clinton’s narrative about her use of the private email server, which has come under scrutiny.

Last year, news organizations reported that Obama administration officials had discovered an email chain between Clinton and retired Gen. David Petraeus that began before Clinton entered office and continued through to Feb. 1. The chain of emails began on an earlier email system that Clinton used while serving in the Senate, but was reportedly transferred on to the clintonemail.com server. 

In 2014, Clinton gave the State Department roughly 30,000 emails from her time in office that she said related to her work as the nation’s top diplomat. Another roughly 30,000 emails, which Clinton said contained personal information such as her daughter’s wedding plans and yoga routines, were deleted.

However, critics have questioned her decision to unilaterally delete the allegedly private emails without getting official input to determine which messages were personal and which were work-related.

Tom Fitton, the head of Judicial Watch, has said that he expects all of the emails to eventually come to light.

The State Department’s publicly released stash of Clinton emails begins on March 18, 2009. The new emails discovered by Judicial Watch are not contained in the State Department’s files.

A State Department official said on Thursday that Clinton “has previously acknowledged that she emailed with department officials before March 18, 2009, the date of the first email in the collection that former Secretary Clinton provided to the Department in December 2014.”

“Former Secretary Clinton has also indicated that she does not have access to work-related emails beyond those she turned over to the Department,” the official added, while noting that Clinton has confirmed in court proceedings that she gave over all the work-related messages she had.

“In September 2015, we also asked the FBI to inform us should it recover any records from Secretary Clinton’s server that we don’t already have,” the official added.

In the email released on Thursday, Mills told Clinton that an NSA official “indicated they could address our BB [BlackBerry] so that BB could work in” secure spaces, “based upon some modifications that could be done.”

“That’s good news,” Clinton responded.

Previous emails released as a result of Judicial Watch’s lawsuit have shown that the NSA dismissed initial attempts by Clinton’s team to secure her BlackBerry.

Fitton, the Judicial Watch head, described Thursday’s email as a repudiation of Clinton’s timeline.

“So now we know that, contrary to her statement under oath suggesting otherwise, Hillary Clinton did not turn over all her government emails,” he said in a statement. “We also know why Hillary Clinton falsely suggests she didn’t use clintonemail.com account prior to March, 18, 2009 — because she didn’t want Americans to know about her February 13, 2009, email that shows that she knew her Blackberry and email use was not secure.”

“Terrorist International” Takes Shape … Against Russia

Theme: US NATO War Agenda

russian-air-force-400x266On October 1, Turkey and six other countries of the US-led coalition published a joint declaration expressing concern over Russia Air Force strikes against the militants in Syria. The signatories include the United States of America (as expected), the monarchies of Persian Gulf (Saudi Arabia and Qatar that were also expected to join), as well as Great Britain, Germany and France.

The statement actually does not say anything extraordinary. Russia stole the initiative from the West. Instead of following the example of «anti-terrorist coalition» and delivering strikes against Syria’s government forces (which together with Kurds conduct combat actions against the militants of so-called Islamic State), Russia bombed the positions of the terrorists. It allowed the legitimate Syrian government to regroup forces, get a break and finally launch a ground offensive to clear the territory from the terrorist plague.

The expression of concern by the United States is logical and natural: Washington has spent great effort to train the «moderate» Syrian opposition (which mysteriously has turned into a source of weapons and manpower for «immoderate» groups). The start of the Russian operation may incur direct financial losses, let alone damage the image of the US.

There is nothing surprising in the fact that the monarchies of Persian Gulf – Saudi Arabia and Qatar – were eager to sign the statement. One may forget what country Osama bin Laden and the majority of terrorists, who seized the aircraft on September 11, 2001, came from. But it’s impossible to reject the fact that the Gulf monarchies (no matter all the real or imaginary contradictions and disagreements dividing them) are the main sponsors of major terrorist groups operating in the Greater Middle East – from Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt to Al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan and, especially, in Pakistan. In case of Saudi Arabia the overthrow of Bashar Assad is just the first step on the way to do away with Iran, its main opponent in the region.

It’s easy to explain why the declaration was initiated by Turkey. Ankara views the Islamic State as the only force able to nip in the bud the aspiration of Kurds, the divided people, for statehood. It makes pale such things of ‘little importance’ like cheap oil exported by militants from Iraq and Syria with Turkey being the main customer.

It’s worth to mention the position of Europe. The fact that London signed the declaration can be explained by the inability of the 51st US state to stop playing the role of American poodle on a leash. It obediently dances to the US tune. The participation of France and Germany seems to be a bit irrational.

So many things have happened in Eastern Europe and the Middle East. Berlin and Paris could have realized that the events seemingly not interconnected meet the logic of US strategy aimed at creating an axis of instability. Its only goal is to preserve the unipolar world where West Europe plays the role of a passive satellite, not an independent actor.

The events in Ukraine occurred exactly when a Europe-Russia energy alliance started to loom and the US-led talks on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership got stalled. Just a coincidence, of course.

All these events let the United States to partially achieve the main goal – it has succeeded in driving a wedge between Europe and Russia, but the talks on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership did not make much progress. The United States had another ace up its sleeve. The civil war in Syria gave rise to the massive migrant flows threatening the very foundation of the European civilization and making European allies meekly ask the big brother overseas for help.

Russia’s resolute actions in Syria leave no chance for these plans. Supposedly, Europeans should breathe a sigh of relief. But it has not happened as yet.

What is the reason? Has the habit to snap to attention become so deeply enrooted? Have the Europeans left any thoughts about having a choice? Some analysts believe that the US National Security Agency has acquired serious compromising material to blackmail European leaders into agreement with Washington.

The hope is still looming that after some time Europe will realize where its real interests lie. The abovementioned declaration of the seven looks more like a creation of a new instrument of Washington. This time it has the form of an international alliance to support terrorists of the so-called Islamic State.