DeLay: FBI ‘Ready to Indict’ Hillary

 

DeLay: FBI ‘Ready to Indict’ Hillary

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 [ old news ]

Special: IRS Insider Confesses . . .

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.”

Last week, Clinton’s press secretary Brian Fallon accused intelligence Inspector General Charles McCullough of colluding with Republicans to damage Clinton’s campaign for president.

The charge came after a report that McCullough sent a letter to two GOP lawmakers that some of Clinton’s emails sent from her private server when she was secretary of state should have been marked with classifications even higher than “top secret.”

© 2016 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

 

Posted by Ainhoa Aristizabal –  Unruly Hearts Chief Editor

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

 

 

 

 

Why Obama’s assurance of ‘no boots on the ground’ isn’t so reassuring

PHAFGHAN13_10_0_163384204

A U.S. Marine on patrol. (Rebecca Sell/For The Washington Post)

Rosa Brooks, a law professor at Georgetown University and a senior fellow at the New America Foundation, was an Obama administration appointee at the Defense Department from 2009 to 2011. She is married to an Army Special Forces officer.

Each time I hear President Obama assure us that there will be “no boots on the ground” in Iraq or Syria, I think of my husband’s Army boots, lying in a heap in the corner of the downstairs study. They’re covered in fine dust from his latest Middle East deployment, one that came nail-bitingly close to being extended by an unplanned stint in Iraq.

In the end, he wasn’t sent back to Iraq. He came home in July, though a last-minute change in assignments left most of his civilian clothes stranded in some Army transport netherworld. Deprived of his sneakers and sandals, he wore his Army boots pretty much everywhere this summer, even on playground outings with the kids. Watching grass stains from the local park gradually displace nine months of Kuwaiti dust gave me more happiness than I can say.

Even so, I can’t help feeling queasy every time I hear the president pledge that there will be “no boots on the ground” in America’s newest war. I wonder what that pledge really means — and just why we’re supposed to find it reassuring. It’s a pledge that seems to have everything to do with politics and little to do with the imperatives of strategy or security.

Here’s what “no boots on the ground” apparently doesn’t mean: It doesn’t mean that no U.S. troops will be sent to Iraq or Syria. Reportedly there are already 1,600 U.S. military personnel in Iraq. True, they’re present in an “advisory” role, not in a combat role — but surely one lesson of Iraq and Afghanistan is that combat has a habit of finding its way to noncombat personnel. Enemy snipers and IEDs don’t much care about a soldier’s mission or occupational specialty, and you can bet that fighters of the self-proclaimed Islamic State would be content with the heads of a few American advisers.

It’s also hard to know what publicly reported troop numbers really mean. When the Pentagon issues a Boots on the Ground report (known colloquially as a “BOG report”), it often excludes military personnel on “temporary duty” in combat areas, even though temporary duty may mean an assignment spanning five or six months. Similarly, Special Operations personnel assigned to work under CIA auspices are often left out of the BOG numbers. This makes it hard to know just who’s being counted when officials say there are 1,600 military personnel in Iraq.

“No boots on the ground” also ignores the many nonmilitary American boots (and shoes and sandals) present in Iraq and Syria. Our Baghdad embassy personnel presumably wear some kind of footwear, as do thousands more civilians working as U.S. government contractors in Iraq. In both Iraq and Syria, scores of American civilians also work for nongovernmental organizations and humanitarian aid groups.

The Pentagon keeps careful count of dead and wounded U.S. troops, but the government doesn’t systematically track dead or injured civilians or contractors (many of whom, of course, are U.S. military veterans). Though few Americans know it, there were often more contractors working for the U.S. government on the ground than there were U.S. troops at the height of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and some estimates suggest that there were as many U.S.-employed contractors who died in those conflicts as there were U.S. troops killed.

Cynics might even suspect that this heavy reliance on contractors was part of an effort to keep those BOG numbers down while outsourcing military risk. After all, no one likes high BOG numbers — the very acronym is suggestive of that most dreaded military outcome, the “quagmire.”

If “no boots on the ground” means playing games with numbers and offloading military risk onto U.S. government civilians and contractors, we should take little solace in presidential reassurances.

And we should feel even less comfort if “no boots on the ground” ends up putting vulnerable local civilians at risk. Remember Kosovo? President Bill Clinton’s refusal in 1999 to put U.S. troops on the ground forced us to rely solely on airstrikes to prevent Serbian ethnic cleansing. To further minimize any risk to U.S. military personnel, we mainly flew sorties at a safe 15,000 feet above the ground. This worked out well for us: Aside from two Americans killed in a helicopter accident in Albania, there were no U.S. fatalities in the 78-day air campaign. It worked out less well for some of the civilians we were trying to protect; in several cases, for instance, NATO pilots mistook convoys of refugees for troop transports, causing scores of civilian deaths.

The primary goal of the current U.S. airstrikes in Syria and Iraq isn’t civilian protection, but Obama has suggested that this is at least a secondary motivation. In his speech this past week to the U.N. General Assembly, for instance, he asserted that the Islamic State “has terrorized all who they come across in Iraq and Syria. Mothers, sisters and daughters have been subjected to rape as a weapon of war. Innocent children have been gunned down. . . . Religious minorities have been starved to death. In the most horrific crimes imaginable, innocent human beings have been beheaded. . . . The only language understood by killers like this is the language of force. So the United States of America will work with a broad coalition to dismantle this network of death.”

It’s hard to argue with the importance of dismantling a “network of death,” but no matter how careful we are, U.S. airstrikes in Syria and Iraq will also end up killing some innocent civilians. Without eyes and ears on the ground, we’re more likely to make tragic targeting mistakes. We have to hope we’ll do more good than harm, but it’s hard to feel confident of that.

Numerous respected military and defense leaders — from Army Gen. Martin Dempsey , current chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to retired defense secretary Robert Gates — have argued in recent weeks that ground troops will probably be required if our strategy is to be effective. So far, events seem to be proving them right: In Iraq, seven weeks of airstrikes have done little to push Islamic State fighters out of the territories they control, despite close U.S. coordination with Iraqi army units. In Syria, we have no similar local force with which to coordinate, creating a risk that U.S. airstrikes will increase the chaos without fundamentally reducing the threat to local civilians — or, in the longer term, to the United States.And that’s most worrisome of all — the possibility that our insistence on “no boots on the ground” also offloads present risks onto the future. Relying on airstrikes alone may merely prolong a bloody and inconclusive conflict, or strengthen other actors who are just as brutal as Islamic State fighters, from the regime of Bashar al-Assad to the al-Qaeda-linked rebels of Jabhat al-Nusra.Insisting that we’ll never commit U.S. troops to this fight plays right into every jihadist narrative, reinforcing America’s image as an arrogant but cowardly nation — happy to drop bombs from a distance but unwilling to risk the lives of our troops. Each time we reinforce that narrative, we give jihadist recruiting another big boost.

 

For a decade, we’ve relied on drone strikes as a top counterterrorism tool in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia, but a few thousand dead terrorism suspects later, it’s far from clear that we’ve made ourselves safer. If anything, the global jihadist movement appears to have gained strength. As a former Defense Intelligence Agency director, Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, recently noted: “In 2004, there were 21 total Islamic terrorist groups spread out in 18 countries. Today, there are 41 Islamic terrorist groups spread out in 24 countries.” Ultimately, our efforts to destroy the Islamic State from afar may similarly spark the creation of even more jihadist groups.

“I will not commit you . . . to fighting another ground war in Iraq,” Obama told troops at Central Command headquarters this month. I appreciate his desire to do right by America’s military personnel: My husband’s boots, like those of so many other members of the armed forces, have already gathered too much dust in too many dangerous places, over too many years. Right now, I want those boots to stay exactly where they are: here, at home.

But I don’t want to trade the safety of U.S. troops today for the safety of our children tomorrow. If Obama’s promise of “no boots on the ground” means we’ll be fighting a war of half-measures — a war that won’t achieve our objectives and that may increase the long-term threat — I’m not sure, in the end, that it’s a promise I want him to keep.

RENEW AMERICA: Proof Hillary isn’t fit to be president

150220_POL_Hillary.jpg.CROP.promovar-mediumlarge

Renew America?

 

 

Larry Klayman

No one understands better than yours truly – except perhaps Vince Foster and scores of others (including material witnesses) who mysteriously died in and around the Clinton administration during the 1990s – the treachery of Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Indeed, I fought her and her husband tooth and nail during these years and am the only lawyer ever to have obtained a court ruling that a sitting president committed a crime – a finding made by now Chief Judge Royce Lamberth in the famous Filegate case, which involved Bill and Hillary Clinton illegally obtaining FBI files on perceived adversaries to intimidate witnesses and blunt the 40-plus scandals that the Clintons found themselves engulfed in during those years.

My efforts to hold the Clintons to the rule of law infuriated them so much that President Clinton, at one point during his impeachment, lost his composure and control. After I also challenged the Clintons’ illegal mortgage and purchase of a home in Chappaqua, N.Y., they attacked me personally at a White House press conference. (See the video on the homepage of Freedomwatchusa.org.) Many wondered at the time how I was able to survive the Clintons’ wrath.

It became well-known during the Clinton years that while the president was a “certified” sleaze ball, the most evil partner of this Bonnie-and-Clyde duo was Hillary. She came to be seen as the “consigliore” of the couple, the one who had executed (pun intended) their dastardly plans and deeds. In this regard, although the moribund Republican establishment is conveniently willing to forget and forgive (since, after all, the Clintons are part of their elitist club in Washington, D.C.) – Republicans having failed miserably to convict Bill Clinton for high crimes and misdemeanors during the impeachment proceedings during the late 1990s – it’s important to remind the nation and the world about who Hillary really is, particularly since she obviously is leaving her post in the Obama administration as secretary of state to likely prepare for a run at the presidency in 2016.

Here is just a partial list of “Her Evilness'” crimes that came to light during the Clinton administration years:

1) Whitewater scandal – This was the fraudulent land scheme, masterminded by Hillary and key witness Jim McDougal (who also mysteriously died in prison), while Hillary was a partner of the Rose Law Firm – also the firm of Vince Foster and Webster Hubbell, who later moved to D.C. with the Clintons to infest the White House Counsel’s office with their “legal expertise.” Hubbell was later indicted, tried and convicted for tax fraud. Foster turned up dead in Fort Marcy Park, as he was a material witness for then independent counsel Ken Starr’s Whitewater criminal investigation.

2) Travelgate – To feather the nest of her friends, Harry and Susan Thomases, both Hollywood “beautiful people,” Hillary had the head of the White House Travel Office, Billy Dale, fired on trumped-up claims of tax irregularities and then put the Thomases in charge to personally reap the profits of this government travel business. Dale, who was my client, was ultimately cleared, but not after his life was virtually ruined.

3) Filegate – This patented Hillary scandal was first detected by the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee, which had been investigating the Clintons’ Travelgate caper. What was learned is that more than 900 FBI files had been ordered up by a former bar bouncer, Craig Livingstone, whom Hillary had hired to work in the White House Counsel’s Office, on the first lady’s orders and without proper legal justification. I later filed a class-action suit against the Clintons and other accomplices. The case went on for almost a decade and resulted in the uncovering of yet another Clinton scandal, E-mailgate – where the Clintons had covered up and suppressed more than a million potentially incriminating emails that should have been produced to me, Ken Starr and Congress over a variety of the duo’s crimes. It was also during this Filegate case that it was learned that President Clinton, on the advice of his top political adviser, James Carville, had illegally released Privacy Act protected information from White House files to smear Kathleen Willey, a woman who was a material witness in the impeachment proceedings, as she was also sexually harassed by the “philanderer in chief” while working for him in the White House. This was the basis of Judge Lamberth’s ruling that President Clinton had committed a crime.

4) Chinagate – Not to be outdone by her prior scandals, Hillary then masterminded a scheme whereby the Clinton-Gore presidential campaign of 1996 took bribes from communist Chinese banks and their government to bankroll the president’s and the Democratic Party’s re-election efforts when it appeared, due to their low standing in the polls, that all the stops needed to be pulled out. It was the lawsuit that I brought against Secretary of Commerce Ron Brown, where at Hillary’s instruction, he literally sold seats on Department trade missions to China and elsewhere, which principally uncovered this. In late 1996 and early 1997, the scandal had burgeoned to such a level that joint congressional hearings were empaneled, ultimately to be shut down when Democrats uncovered illegal fundraising by some Republicans. The two parties, faced with mutual assured destruction, simply took an exit stage left. However, I soldiered on with my lawsuit. And, while I uncovered a lot about Bonnie and Clyde and their Chinese “friends,” this scandal ultimately took back seat to the Monica Lewinsky scandal, since the media preferred sex to foreign espionage and graft. Hillary and Bill were ironically saved by Monica, who became the lightening rod drawing attention away to what at the time was perhaps the biggest scandal – Chinagate – in American history.

[D]uring the congressional hearings concerning the terrorist attacks in Benghazi, Libya, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton finally testified about her role in the breakdown of security at the consulate, which resulted in the deaths of our ambassador and three others. At several points during even the mild questioning about why she had not as secretary of state taken steps to beef up security despite warnings before the terrorist attack, Hillary lost control and bore her vicious fangs.

 Hillary Clinton’s Fiery Moment at Benghazi Hearing

 

 

To me, and I hope the nation and the world, this shows again why she is not fit to be president. If she has a place to fill, the more fitting venue would be a prison cell, lest we not remember who she really is.

Larry Klayman

Larry Klayman, founder of Judicial Watch and Freedom Watch, is known for his strong public interest advocacy in furtherance of ethics in government and individual freedoms and liberties. During his tenure at Judicial Watch, he obtained a court ruling that Bill Clinton committed a crime, the first lawyer ever to have done so against an American president. Larry became so famous for fighting corruption in the government and the legal profession that the NBC hit drama series West Wing created a character after him: Harry Klaypool of Freedom Watch. His character was played by actor John Diehl.

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.