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.






22libya-full-bleed-videoSixteenByNine3000                   Fotograph courtesy of the New York Times


There could be no more apt image to describe Libyan politics today than the prime minister himself, the beleaguered Mr Ali Zeidan, being kidnapped on Tuesday morning by a militia notionally allied to his own government. When he was released several hours later, he noted, with marvellous understatement, that “there are many things that need dealing with”. Indeed there are.

For one thing, Mr Zeidan’s was not the first abduction of the week. That came courtesy of American special forces, who strolled into Tripoli on Saturday to pick up Abu Anas al-Liby, a senior member of al‑Qaeda wanted for the 1998 bombings of US embassies in Kenya and Uganda. The Americans then made life immeasurably harder for the Libyan government by insisting that it had known about the raid. The predictable result was uproar.

But it’s no surprise that the US felt the need to step in. Libyan forces were neither able to prevent the 2011 attack on the US consulate in Benghazi, which killed Ambassador Chris Stevens, nor arrest anyone afterwards. If the US had simply put in an extradition request, the prospect of al-Liby being picked up or ever facing trial would have been vanishingly small.

In truth, the prime minister’s kidnapping and the US raid are both no more than symptoms of something that has been obvious for over a year: Libya’s post-Gaddafi state lacks the firepower to impose its will on an increasingly lawless country. The Italian consulate in Benghazi was attacked in January, the French embassy in April, the EU ambassador’s convoy in August, and Russia’s embassy last week. And those are just the foreign targets.

This is about much more than terrorist violence. The state in Libya, which Colonel Gaddafi eviscerated for his own despotic ends, is now being consumed by the same rebel groups that brought it into life back in 2011. Performing the most basic tasks of administration, such as making arrests or monitoring borders, can require a negotiation between the government and whichever militias happen to have accumulated enough guns in that particular area. It’s not just that the enfeebled police and army won’t take them on for fear of losing. It’s also that the state has decided to outsource these functions to its tormentors. Both the prime minister’s kidnapping and the attack in Benghazi were perpetrated by groups that have worked with the government and its ministries.

Why are militias challenging the government in the first place? There’s no simple answer, because there is a dizzying variety of groups with guns. Some are Islamist, others secular and nationalist. Some are formed around particular cities or provinces. Others formed in a jumbled way during the 2011 uprising, and claim a sort of Jacobin revolutionary legitimacy against what they see as a government tainted by corrupt, pro-Western stooges.

In March, a coalition of militias, with the typically self-important title of the Supreme Security Council, laid siege to the ministries of justice and foreign affairs for two weeks, insisting that parliament sign a wide-ranging law that would ban Gaddafi-era officials from serving in government. Remarkably, parliament capitulated. It had essentially been coerced into legislating at the barrel of a gun. The speaker of parliament himself was forced to resign.

Outside of Tripoli, the problem is no better. For the past two months, Libyan oil exports have plummeted to a fifth of their Gaddafi-era peak, after guards at eastern oil facilities and ports went on strike. Part of that dispute was a demand that eastern Libya, which chafes at Tripoli’s domination, be given more autonomy.

Wars, once won, tend to be forgotten. This was the fate of Afghanistan in the years after 2001, Iraq in 2003 and Libya in 2011. But Libya’s problems will not stay within its borders. Adding to all of these domestic concerns is the massive flow of arms across Libya’s long, porous borders. Libyan weapons, looted from Gaddafi’s armouries, have been smuggled across the region, turning up in places as diverse as Mali, the Sinai, Gaza and Syria. According to one estimate, around 3,000 shoulder-launched anti-aircraft missiles – capable of bringing down civilian airliners – remain missing.

The dilemma is clear: Libya’s government is too weak to fix these problems itself, but unilateral American or European steps – or assistance that is too public – risks tainting the government further in the eyes of Islamists and nationalists. A careful balance has to be struck. This government’s authority has been eroding for over a year, and it has now suffered the most grievous blow yet. Unless Mr Zeidan shows he can check the power of militias, he risks a continued slide into irrelevance.

The Attack on the American Mission in Benghazi, Libya

The American mission in Benghazi, Libya, was attacked twice on the night of Sept. 11, 2012. Below, the events that evening that resulted in the deaths of Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans according to the latest information available.
The American mission in Benghazi, Libya, was attacked twice on the night of Sept. 11, 2012. Below, the events that evening that resulted in the deaths of Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans according to the latest information available.
Sept. 11, 9:30 p.m. Benghazi time

Militants, firing guns and rocket-propelled grenades, attack the main compound, moving on multiple entrances at once. The main entrance is protected by three armed and four unarmed Libyan guards. No more than seven Americans are in the compound, including three civilians and four who have guns. Mr. Stevens is alone in the main building, according to guards interviewed later. The militants enter the compound, backed by truck-mounted artillery.

Libya Envoy’s Killing Was a Terrorist Attack, the White House Says

WASHINGTON — The White House is now calling the assault on the American diplomatic facility in Benghazi, Libya, a “terrorist attack.”

“It is self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack,” the White House press secretary, Jay Carney, told reporters aboard Air Force One on Thursday. “Our embassy was attacked violently and the result was four deaths of American officials.”

Until now, White House officials have not used that language in describing the assault. But with the election less than two months away and President Obama’s record on national security a campaign issue, they have come under criticism from Republican lawmakers who say the administration is playing down a threat for which it was unprepared.

Mr. Carney offered the new assessment in response to a question about remarks by Matthew G. Olsen, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, who told a Congressional committee Wednesday that J. Christopher Stevens, the United States ambassador to Libya, and three other Americans had died “in the course of a terrorist attack.”

Asked if the president drew a connection between the Libyan attack, which occurred on Sept. 11, and the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon 11 years before, Mr. Carney said, “The attack occurred on Sept 11, 2012, so we use the same calendar at the White House as you do.”

In a highly charged political atmosphere, the mere use of the term “terrorist” is loaded, not least, as one administration official acknowledged privately, because the phrase conjures up an image of America under attack, something the White House wants to avoid.

Beyond that, different government agencies have different definitions for what defines terrorism, said Brian Fishman, a counterterrorism expert at the New America Foundation, a nonpartisan research group.

The classic definition, Mr. Fishman said, “is an attack by a nonstate group on noncombatants with the intent to intimidate people.” He said that another reason the administration was shying from using that term is because “they really didn’t know who did it.”

And the president, campaigning in Florida on Thursday, did not use the word terrorism when asked about the attacks.

Mr. Carney maintained on Thursday that Obama administration officials still were not calling the attack preplanned.

“According to the best information we have now, we believe it was an opportunistic attack on our mission in Benghazi,” he said. “It appears that some well-armed militants seized on that attack as the events unfolded that evening. We do not have any specific intelligence that there was significant advance planning or coordination for this attack.”Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said earlier in the week that there had been no intelligence warnings that an attack was imminent.

Mrs. Clinton said that F.B.I. investigators had arrived in Tripoli and that the United States, with the Libyan authorities, would find those responsible. She did not discuss any potential ties to Al Qaeda, but blamed extremists opposed to the democratic changes in places like Libya, Tunisia and Egypt for the violence and protests around the region generally.

Mrs. Clinton announced the creation of a panel to investigate the attack. The panel, called an Accountability Review Board, will be led by Thomas R. Pickering, a veteran diplomat and former under secretary of state. The board is authorized by a 1986 law intended to strengthen security at United States diplomatic missions.

“We are concerned first and foremost with our own people and facilities,” Mrs. Clinton said in an appearance at the State Department with the Indonesian foreign minister. “But we are concerned about the internal security in these countries, because ultimately, that puts at risk the men, women and children of these societies on a daily ongoing basis if actions are not taken to try to restore security and civil order.”

13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi Review



13 Hours has elements of a lean and efficient action/thriller, but is bloated and overblown thanks to Michael Bay’s directorial approach.


13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi takes us back to the year 2012, as the country of Libya finds itself in a tumultuous state of change following the death of “Colonel” Muammar Muhammad Abu Minyar al-Gaddafi (Libya’s main leader/ruler for decades), one year earlier. This is the environment that CIA security contractor and military veteran Jack Silva (John Krasinski) find himself in upon arriving in the Libyan city of Benghazi. There Silva works alongside his fellow contractors – including his old friend Tyrone “Rone” Woods (James Badge Dale), in addition to Mark “Oz” Geist (Max Martini), Kris “Tanto” Paronto (Pablo Schreiber), John “Tig” Tiegen (Dominic Fumusa), and one Dave “Boon” Benton (David Denman) – to provide security at a CIA annex, where the Chief (David Constabile) sees the contractors as little more than a last resort should things go wrong, as far as security is concerned.

While Silva and his fellow contractors express their concerns about the protective measures that are in place at the Libyan U.S. diplomatic compound – currently housing one Ambassador Chris Stevens (Matt Letscher) – the compound’s security team offer assurances that the situation is being handled carefully. However, when terrorist militants attack the U.S. compound on the anniversary of the September 11th terrorist attacks, things quickly go from bad to worse – and when it becomes clear that the backup will be too late to help, it falls upon Silva and his fellow contractors to launch a desperate rescue mission… even as the militants prepare to attack the Benghazi CIA station next.


John Krasinski in 13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi


Drawing from Mitchell Zuckoff’s 2014 book “13 Hours: The Inside Account of What Really Happened in Benghazi”, 13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi offers jingoistic posturing aplenty, yet also skirts around the politics that surround the 2012 Benghazi terrorist attacks – instead, exploring a Black Hawk Down-style action/thriller narrative that is centered around a small team of ex-military contractors that were involved in the incident. The adapted 13 Hours script penned by Chuck Hogan – the co-creator of The Strain TV show and the author of The Town‘s source material, “Prince of Thieves” – even provides a tightly constructed three-act narrative skeleton for the movie to build upon, with nary a dangling plot thread or extraneous story tangent to be found.

Problem is, 13 Hours also paints the tensions between the contractors and members of the CIA (in particular, the annex Chief) in broad strokes, while at the same time failing to provide enough onscreen development time for the eponymous “Secret Soldiers” to amount to much more than two-dimensional archetypes. Director Michael Bay then stretches the storyline out to encompass a nearly two and a half running time with a focus on generating thrills and suspense – something that makes the film’s already heavy-handed storytelling approach come off all the more ham-fisted, in the process. The end result: 13 Hours resembles a feature film-length version of a season of the TV series Homeland (season 4 in particular), albeit with the CIA drama/thriller show’s best elements (intriguing plot points and character development) having been reduced in order to make more room for additional spectacle and action.

13 hours movie review james badge dale 13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi Review

James Badge Dale in 13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi

Credit where credit’s due, few directors know how to stage explosion-happy set pieces and/or stylized, yet grounded, action sequences like Bay does, and 13 Hours is evidence of just that. The film in turn combines the aesthetic elements of Bay’s past work (constant fast-paced editing and dynamic camera shot choices/movement) with solid cinematography by Dion Beebe (Edge of Tomorrow) in order to craft combat scenarios and chase sequences that succeed in making the audience feel as though they too are right in the line of fire. 13 Hours‘ approach to re-staging the Benghazi terrorist attack is visually bombastic and spectacle-driven to the point that it becomes ridiculous, in terms of how much explosive action and destruction is actually shown onscreen – and for sure, there are certain moments where Bay unimaginatively recycles his work on films past (in particular, one of the most famous shots from Pearl Harbor is re-used here). Nevertheless, no one Bay-style action as well as Bay himself.

However, Bay is (again) his own worst enemy when it comes to ratcheting up the tension and suspense here. 13 Hours succeed in creating a vision of Benghazi that feels like the setting out of a Western (for better or worse) where danger lurks around ever corner – yet, because virtually every scene in the film is shot and played out with the same over the top style (regardless of the tone or mood it’s going for), the technique becomes more tedious than effective after a while. Moreover, as was indicated before, 13 Hours starts off with an overall tight first act (story-wise and in terms of pacing), before the action then kicks in and carries on for longer than necessary. On the whole, 13 Hours would’ve been better served by additional editing to trim out the excessive spectacle.

13 hours movie review max martini 13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi Review

Max Martini in 13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi

The ‘Secret Soldiers’ themselves aren’t developed far beyond recognizable war film genre ‘types’ (the jokester, the family man who can’t leave the war behind him, and so forth), but 13 Hours benefits from having a talented roster of character actor bringing its primary characters to life. The Office alum John Krasinski packed on extra muscle for his role in 13 Hours, though it’s his own dramatic acting skills and screen charisma that serves him best here. Similarly, noteworthy characters actors James Badge Dale (Iron Man 3), Pablo Schreiber (Orange is the New Black), Dominic Fumusa (Nurse Jackie), Max Martini (Pacific Rim) and David Denman (Krasinski’s onetime Office costar) do fine work – lending humanity to the other members of the contracted security team, as does Toby Stephens (Black Sails) in a small role as Global Response Staff officer Glen “Bub” Doherty.

Unfortunately, David Constabile (Low Winter Sun, Suits) can only do so much to elevate the character of CIA Chief “Bob” above being a glorified (and sniveling) obstacle holding the ‘Secret Soldiers’ back from saving the day properly in 13 Hours; the same holds true for other members of the CIA in the film, as played by such folk as Alexia Barlier (The Missionaries) and Freddie Stroma (Pitch Perfect). While most of the native Libyans in the film – be they terrorists, allies to the ‘Secret Soldiers’, or just residents who get caught in the cross-fire – are depicted as one-note stereotypes, Peyman Moaadi (A Separation) does solid and sympathetic work in the role of Amahl, a Libyan aide who does his best to help, even once the bloodshed starts to unfold around him.

13 hours secret soldiers movie review 13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi Review

‘The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi’

13 Hours has elements of a lean and efficient action/thriller, but is bloated and overblown thanks to Michael Bay’s directorial approach. The film will no doubt prompt debates about how it portrays the events of the 2012 Libyan terrorist attack and what its political message (or lack thereof) means, but that will have more to do with the people having the debate – rather than anything that the movie itself actually has to offer on the subject. Indeed, 13 Hours is more mature than most of Bay’s recent work solely because the bar has been set so low; thus, while some filmgoers will enjoy 13 Hours and appreciate its grisly portrayal of militaristic combat, other hoping the the film’s subject matter would elevate it above being mindless action movie entertainment are likely to wind up being disappointed.


13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi – Official Trailer


13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi is now playing in U.S. theaters. It is 144 minutes long and is Rated R for strong combat violence throughout, bloody images, and language.

Let us know what you thought of the film in the comments below.