This Reeks of a Cover-up

State Department destroyed Clinton aides’ BlackBerrys

Commentary on the article below by:

Ed Kilbane

I can understand destroying the device after you download all the information from it. But how can the State Dept. justify destroying all the records on their Blackberrys along with the physical device? Who ordered them to do that? When you trade your old PC in for a new one, you back up all your data so you don't lose it when attempting to transfer it from the old device to the new one. In the Hildabeast's own words, it requires the willful suspension of disbelief to believe that the State Dept. routinely destroys old devices and doesn't make any effort to preserve the information they contain. I wonder if they'll revisit Ray Maxwell's claims about the secret Sunday email review operation conducted by Cheryl Mills and friends in the basement of the State Dept. as they sorted out incriminating Benghazi emails? Has anyone asked The Hildabeast why she refused to appoint an Inspector General for the State Dept. while she was secretary? Isn't that unusual? Doesn't it add more fuel to the fire that she considers herself above the law, beyond reproach, and answerable to nobody? "I don't need no stinking Inspector General!!!"

---------------------------------------------

The State Department likely destroyed the BlackBerry devices issued to two top aides of Hillary Rodham Clinton and never issued Mrs. Clinton a device at all, officials told a federal court Wednesday in a filing that raises still more security questions about the former secretary’s email practices.

Administration officials will be in court Thursday to give more details about their search for the emails, which have become a political scandal for Mrs. Clinton and a major headache for President Obama’s administration.

Mrs. Clinton’s campaign aides continue to publicly wave off worries over the emails, casting it as a media feeding frenzy that doesn’t affect voters’ decisions as the former first lady and senator seeks Democrats’ 2016 presidential nomination.

“The press have a lot of questions about emails, but voters don’t,” Jennifer Palmieri, a longtime aide, said on MSNBC, saying Mrs. Clinton hasn’t “gotten one question about it” during town halls in New Hampshire and Iowa. “People are asking her [about] questions that affect their lives.”

Judges, however, are asking questions about the emails and the State Department’s efforts to try to recover as many of them as possible, and department officials have had to scramble to try to track down the emails and the devices that Mrs. Clinton and top aides Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin used to send them.

On Wednesday, Ambassador Joseph E. Macmanus, executive secretary of the State Department, said his office never gave Mrs. Clinton any devices at all.

“[The department] does not believe that any personal computing device was issued by the department to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and has not located any such device,” he told the court.

Judicial Watch, the conservative public interest law firm whose lawsuit has forced the State Department to try to find the devices, said that answer wasn’t very comforting, since it means Mrs. Clinton must have been using her own BlackBerry — raising major national security questions.

“If the State Department was not providing secure email devices to Mrs. Clinton, who was? Best Buy? Target? Mrs. Clinton clearly did whatever she wanted, without regard to national security or federal records keeping laws,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said.

As for Ms. Abedin and Ms. Mills, Mr. Macmanus said they were issued BlackBerrys, but those can no longer be found. He said they were old by the time they were turned back in, and under department policy they were either “destroyed or excessed.”

Mrs. Clinton rejected a State.gov email account during her time in office, instead creating an email address tied to a server she kept in her home in New York. Prodded by the probe into the 2012 Benghazi terrorist attack, she returned 30,490 emails to the State Department in December — nearly two years after she left office.

Those emails are slowly being released under a judge’s order, but some of the messages have had classified information redacted from them, raising questions about whether Mrs. Clinton was mishandling secret information by using a non-State.gov account.

She has insisted she didn’t send any classified information, nor did she receive any messages marked classified at the time, though some of them have been upgraded to classified since.

David E. Kendall, Mrs. Clinton’s lawyer, said in a letter to Congress that the server has been wiped clean — though he didn’t say who did that. Mrs. Clintonon Tuesday wouldn’t directly answer whether she’d deleted the messages herself, instead mocking a reporter’s suggestions that she “wiped” it. “What, like with a cloth or something?” she retorted.

Mr. Kendall, in his letter to Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Ron Johnson, detailed his own involvement in holding Mrs. Clinton’s emails.

While he turned over paper records, which he said was department policy, he kept a flash drive with all of the messages in electronic form at his law office.

In July, when it became clear the emails contained classified information, the State Department gave him a safe to store the drive, and he said only he and his law partner, Katherine M. Turner, had access to the safe. He also said he and Ms. Turner hold top secret security clearances issued by the State Department.

He has since turned the flash drive and two copies over to federal investigators, and Platte River Networks, a Colorado company that took possession of the server when Mrs. Clinton was through with it, also turned it over.

But questions continue to be raised.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley sent a letter Wednesday demanding to know more about the process used to decide which emails are now classified, following reports in The Washington Times earlier this week that some of the review team has ties to Mr. Kendall and may be biased.

Mr. Grassley asked the department to turn over any internal complaints it’s gotten from those concerned employees and to detail any ties between Mr. Kendall and members of the screening team.

Mr. Grassley said, in one case, information was supposed to have been kept private and marked classified, but instead was marked “privileged” — a different exemption that could be used to hide the total amount of secret information Mrs. Clinton was communicating about through her email system.

About 5 percent of the 30,000 messages contain red flags that mean they might have classified information, and they need to be screened by intelligence community officers.

Mrs. Clinton did get some help from an unexpected quarter Wednesday when former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, one of her rivals for the Democratic nomination, said the emails are a distraction and shouldn’t define the presidential race.

Still, Mr. O’Malley wouldn’t say whether he thinks Mrs. Clinton is being honest, The Associated Press reported.

This Reeks of a Cover-up

Muslims 'Procreate Like Mushrooms After the Rain'

Florida professor sounds a lot like Trump.

Video 145

Muslims 'Procreate Like Mushrooms After the Rain'

UN to let Iran inspect themselves

This is beyond crazy!

Why doesn't Barry just hand over some of our nukes and save Iran the trouble? 

Barry had the leverage $150 billion of their money... and this is the best deal he and Kerry could come up with? We didn't even get the hostages back. Someone tell me just WTF we got out of this deal! 

Truly this woman is an asshole. Her delusional fascination with Barry is like a dense fog settled between her ears. 

Video 134

-----------------------------------------------------

VIENNA (AP) — Iran will be allowed to use its own inspectors to investigate a site it has been accused of using to develop nuclear arms, operating under a secret agreement with the U.N. agency that normally carries out such work, according to a document seen by The Associated Press.

The revelation on Wednesday newly riled Republican lawmakers in the U.S. who have been severely critical of a broader agreement to limit Iran's future nuclear programs, signed by the Obama administration, Iran and five world powers in July. Those critics have complained that the wider deal is unwisely built on trust of the Iranians, while the administration has insisted it depends on reliable inspections.

A skeptical House Speaker John Boehner said, "President Obama boasts his deal includes 'unprecedented verification.' He claims it's not built on trust. But the administration's briefings on these side deals have been totally insufficient - and it still isn't clear whether anyone at the White House has seen the final documents."

Said House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Ed Royce: "International inspections should be done by international inspectors. Period."

But House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi shrugged off the revelation, saying, "I truly believe in this agreement."

The newly disclosed side agreement, for an investigation of the Parchin nuclear site by the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency, is linked to persistent allegations that Iran has worked on atomic weapons. That investigation is part of the overarching nuclear-limits deal.

Evidence of the inspections concession is sure to increase pressure from U.S. congressional opponents before a Senate vote of disapproval on the overall agreement in early September. If the resolution passes and President Barack Obama vetoes it, opponents would need a two-thirds majority to override it. Even Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Republican, has suggested opponents will likely lose a veto fight, though that was before Wednesday's disclosure.

John Cornyn of Texas, the second-ranking Republican senator, said, "Trusting Iran to inspect its own nuclear site and report to the U.N. in an open and transparent way is remarkably naive and incredibly reckless. This revelation only reinforces the deep-seated concerns the American people have about the agreement."

The Parchin agreement was worked out between the IAEA and Iran. The United States and the five other world powers were not party to it but were briefed by the IAEA and endorsed it as part of the larger package.

On Wednesday, White House National Security Council spokesman Ned Price said the Obama administration was "confident in the agency's technical plans for investigating the possible military dimensions of Iran's former program. ... The IAEA has separately developed the most robust inspection regime ever peacefully negotiated."

All IAEA member countries must give the agency some insight into their nuclear programs. Some are required to do no more than give a yearly accounting of the nuclear material they possess. But nations— like Iran — suspected of possible proliferation are under greater scrutiny that can include stringent inspections.

The agreement in question diverges from normal procedures by allowing Tehran to employ its own experts and equipment in the search for evidence of activities it has consistently denied — trying to develop nuclear weapons.

Olli Heinonen, who was in charge of the Iran probe as deputy IAEA director general from 2005 to 2010, said he could think of no similar concession with any other country.

The White House has repeatedly denied claims of a secret side deal favorable to Tehran. IAEA chief Yukiya Amano told Republican senators last week that he was obligated to keep the document confidential.

Iran has refused access to Parchin for years and has denied any interest in — or work on — nuclear weapons. Based on U.S., Israeli and other intelligence and its own research, the IAEA suspects that the Islamic Republic may have experimented with high-explosive detonators for nuclear arms.

The IAEA has cited evidence, based on satellite images, of possible attempts to sanitize the site since the alleged work stopped more than a decade ago.

The document seen by the AP is a draft that one official familiar with its contents said doesn't differ substantially from the final version. He demanded anonymity because he wasn't authorized to discuss the issue in public.

The document is labeled "separate arrangement II," indicating there is another confidential agreement between Iran and the IAEA governing the agency's probe of the nuclear weapons allegations.

Iran is to provide agency experts with photos and videos of locations the IAEA says are linked to the alleged weapons work, "taking into account military concerns."

That wording suggests that — beyond being barred from physically visiting the site — the agency won't get photo or video information from areas Iran says are off-limits because they have military significance.

While the document says the IAEA "will ensure the technical authenticity" of Iran's inspection, it does not say how.

The draft is unsigned but the proposed signatory for Iran is listed as Ali Hoseini Tash, deputy secretary of the Supreme National Security Council for Strategic Affairs. That reflects the significance Tehran attaches to the agreement.

Iranian diplomats in Vienna were unavailable for comment, Wednesday while IAEA spokesman Serge Gas said the agency had no immediate comment.

The main focus of the July 14 deal between Iran and six world powers is curbing Iran's present nuclear program that could be used to make weapons. But a subsidiary element obligates Tehran to cooperate with the IAEA in its probe of the past allegations.

The investigation has been essentially deadlocked for years, with Tehran asserting the allegations are based on false intelligence from the U.S., Israel and other adversaries. But Iran and the U.N. agency agreed last month to wrap up the investigation by December, when the IAEA plans to issue a final assessment.

That assessment is unlikely to be unequivocal. Still, it is expected to be approved by the IAEA's board, which includes the United States and the other nations that negotiated the July 14 agreement. They do not want to upend their broader deal, and will see the December report as closing the books on the issue.AP UN to let Iran inspect alleged nuke work site

VIENNA (AP) — Iran will be allowed to use its own inspectors to investigate a site it has been accused of using to develop nuclear arms, operating under a secret agreement with the U.N. agency that normally carries out such work, according to a document seen by The Associated Press.

The revelation on Wednesday newly riled Republican lawmakers in the U.S. who have been severely critical of a broader agreement to limit Iran's future nuclear programs, signed by the Obama administration, Iran and five world powers in July. Those critics have complained that the wider deal is unwisely built on trust of the Iranians, while the administration has insisted it depends on reliable inspections.

A skeptical House Speaker John Boehner said, "President Obama boasts his deal includes 'unprecedented verification.' He claims it's not built on trust. But the administration's briefings on these side deals have been totally insufficient - and it still isn't clear whether anyone at the White House has seen the final documents."

Said House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Ed Royce: "International inspections should be done by international inspectors. Period."

But House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi shrugged off the revelation, saying, "I truly believe in this agreement."

The newly disclosed side agreement, for an investigation of the Parchin nuclear site by the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency, is linked to persistent allegations that Iran has worked on atomic weapons. That investigation is part of the overarching nuclear-limits deal.

Evidence of the inspections concession is sure to increase pressure from U.S. congressional opponents before a Senate vote of disapproval on the overall agreement in early September. If the resolution passes and President Barack Obama vetoes it, opponents would need a two-thirds majority to override it. Even Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Republican, has suggested opponents will likely lose a veto fight, though that was before Wednesday's disclosure.

John Cornyn of Texas, the second-ranking Republican senator, said, "Trusting Iran to inspect its own nuclear site and report to the U.N. in an open and transparent way is remarkably naive and incredibly reckless. This revelation only reinforces the deep-seated concerns the American people have about the agreement."

The Parchin agreement was worked out between the IAEA and Iran. The United States and the five other world powers were not party to it but were briefed by the IAEA and endorsed it as part of the larger package.

On Wednesday, White House National Security Council spokesman Ned Price said the Obama administration was "confident in the agency's technical plans for investigating the possible military dimensions of Iran's former program. ... The IAEA has separately developed the most robust inspection regime ever peacefully negotiated."

All IAEA member countries must give the agency some insight into their nuclear programs. Some are required to do no more than give a yearly accounting of the nuclear material they possess. But nations— like Iran — suspected of possible proliferation are under greater scrutiny that can include stringent inspections.

The agreement in question diverges from normal procedures by allowing Tehran to employ its own experts and equipment in the search for evidence of activities it has consistently denied — trying to develop nuclear weapons.

Olli Heinonen, who was in charge of the Iran probe as deputy IAEA director general from 2005 to 2010, said he could think of no similar concession with any other country.

The White House has repeatedly denied claims of a secret side deal favorable to Tehran. IAEA chief Yukiya Amano told Republican senators last week that he was obligated to keep the document confidential.

Iran has refused access to Parchin for years and has denied any interest in — or work on — nuclear weapons. Based on U.S., Israeli and other intelligence and its own research, the IAEA suspects that the Islamic Republic may have experimented with high-explosive detonators for nuclear arms.

The IAEA has cited evidence, based on satellite images, of possible attempts to sanitize the site since the alleged work stopped more than a decade ago.

The document seen by the AP is a draft that one official familiar with its contents said doesn't differ substantially from the final version. He demanded anonymity because he wasn't authorized to discuss the issue in public.

The document is labeled "separate arrangement II," indicating there is another confidential agreement between Iran and the IAEA governing the agency's probe of the nuclear weapons allegations.

Iran is to provide agency experts with photos and videos of locations the IAEA says are linked to the alleged weapons work, "taking into account military concerns."

That wording suggests that — beyond being barred from physically visiting the site — the agency won't get photo or video information from areas Iran says are off-limits because they have military significance.

While the document says the IAEA "will ensure the technical authenticity" of Iran's inspection, it does not say how.

The draft is unsigned but the proposed signatory for Iran is listed as Ali Hoseini Tash, deputy secretary of the Supreme National Security Council for Strategic Affairs. That reflects the significance Tehran attaches to the agreement.

Iranian diplomats in Vienna were unavailable for comment, Wednesday while IAEA spokesman Serge Gas said the agency had no immediate comment.

The main focus of the July 14 deal between Iran and six world powers is curbing Iran's present nuclear program that could be used to make weapons. But a subsidiary element obligates Tehran to cooperate with the IAEA in its probe of the past allegations.

The investigation has been essentially deadlocked for years, with Tehran asserting the allegations are based on false intelligence from the U.S., Israel and other adversaries. But Iran and the U.N. agency agreed last month to wrap up the investigation by December, when the IAEA plans to issue a final assessment.

That assessment is unlikely to be unequivocal. Still, it is expected to be approved by the IAEA's board, which includes the United States and the other nations that negotiated the July 14 agreement. They do not want to upend their broader deal, and will see the December report as closing the books on the issue.

UN to let Iran inspect themselves

WOW...This deal is looking better and better all the time

Iran threatened ‘harm’ to top nuke inspector to prevent disclosure of secret side deals

(Would't be surprised if Barry threatened him too)

As you're reading this remember because of Barry's negotiating skills no American is allowed to perform inspections.  We're taking the word of, and trusting foreigners, to safeguard the United States and Israel.

Some deal right?

---------------------------------------------------

June 8, 2015: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director General Yukiya Amano leaves a news conference after a board of governors meeting at the IAEA headquarters in Vienna, Austria. (Reuters)

Iranian leaders prevented a top International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) official from disclosing to U.S. officials the nature of secret side deals with the Islamic Republic by threatening harm to him, according to regional reports.

Yukiya Amano, IAEA director general, purportedly remained silent about the nature of certain side deals during briefings with top U.S. officials because he feared such disclosures would lead to retaliation by Iran, according to the spokesman for Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization (AEOI).

Amano was in Washington recently to brief members of Congress and others about the recently inked nuclear accord. However, he did not discuss the nature of side deals with Iran that the United States is not permitted to know about.

Iran apparently threatened Amano in a letter meant to ensure he did not reveal specific information about the nature of nuclear inspections going forward, according to Iranian AEOI spokesman Behrouz Kamalvandi.

This disclosure has only boosted suspicions among some that the Iranians are willing and able to intimidate the top nuclear watchdog and potentially undermine the verification regime that Obama administration officials have dubbed a key component of the nuclear accord.

“In a letter to Yukiya Amano, we underlined that if the secrets of the agreement (roadmap between Iran and the IAEA) are revealed, we will lose our trust in the Agency; and despite the US Congress’s pressures, he didn’t give any information to them,” Kamalvandi was quoted as saying Monday during a meeting with Iranian lawmakers, according to Tehran’s state-controlled Fars News Agency.

“Had he done so, he himself would have been harmed,” the official added.

WOW...This deal is looking better and better all the time

The Issue of the Century

Birth right citizenship

Trump is finally speaking out about the legality of "anchor babies". I've been harping on this for years to no avail.

The 14th Amendment: 

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

Add 3 words after the first United States.

 >of legal parents<

 Problem solved, and who is getting hurt…only the illegals. 

Can't understand the left's fascination with illegals. Who in their right mind would advocate people coming here illegally?

 Eisenhower knew what to do and we can do it again!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Wetback

----------------------------------------------------------------------

On a tip from Ed Kilbane

Pat Buchanan

8/18/2015 12:01:00 AM - Pat Buchanan

"Trump's immigration proposals are as dangerous as they are stunning," railed amnesty activist Frank Sharry.

"Trump ... promises to rescind protections for Dreamers and deport them. He wants to redefine the constitutional definition of U.S. citizenship as codified by the 14th Amendment. He plans to impose a moratorium on legal immigration."

While Sharry is a bit hysterical, he is not entirely wrong. 

For the six-page policy paper, to secure America's border and send back aliens here illegally, released by Trump last weekend, is the toughest, most comprehensive, stunning immigration proposal of the election cycle.

The Trump folks were aided by people around Sen. Jeff Sessions who says Trump's plan "reestablishes the principle that America's immigration laws should serve the interests of its own citizens."

The issue is joined, the battle lines are drawn, and the GOP will debate and may decide which way America shall go. And the basic issues -- how to secure our borders, whether to repatriate the millions here illegally, whether to declare a moratorium on immigration into the USA -- are part of a greater question.

Will the West endure, or disappear by the century's end as another lost civilization? Mass immigration, if it continues, will be more decisive in deciding the fate of the West than Islamist terrorism. For the world is invading the West.

A wild exaggeration? Consider.

Monday's Washington Post had a front-page story on an "escalating rash of violent attacks against refugees," in Germany, including arson attacks on refugee centers and physical assaults.

Burled in the story was an astonishing statistic. Germany, which took in 174,000 asylum seekers last year, is on schedule to take in 500,000 this year. Yet Germany is smaller than Montana. 

How long can a geographically limited and crowded German nation, already experiencing ugly racial conflict, take in half a million Third World people every year without tearing itself apart, and changing the character of the nation forever?

Do we think the riots and racial wars will stop if more come?

And these refugees, asylum seekers and illegal immigrants are not going to stop coming to Europe. For they are being driven across the Med by wars in Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and Yemen, by the horrific conditions in Eritrea, Ethiopia, Somalia and Sudan, by the Islamist terrorism of the Mideast and the abject poverty of the sub-Sahara. 

According to the U.N., Africa had 1.1 billion people by 2013, will double that to 2.4 billion by 2050, and double that to 4.2 billion by 2100. 

How many of these billions dream of coming to Europe? When and why will they stop coming? How many can Europe absorb without going bankrupt and changing the continent forever?

Does Europe have the toughness to seal its borders and send back the intruders? Or is Europe so morally paralyzed it has become what Jean Raspail mocked in "The Camp of the Saints"?

The blazing issue in Britain and France is the thousands of Arab and African asylum seekers clustered about Calais to traverse the Eurotunnel to Dover. The Brits are on fire. Millions want out of the EU. They want to remain who they are.

Each week we read of boats sinking in the Med with hundreds of refugees drowning. Yet many, many more make it to the Greek and Italian islands, and thence north to Germany and Scandinavia and the welfare states of Western Europe. Once they step onto EU soil, they are in.

This unending invasion has called into existence anti-immigrant and anti-EU parties in almost every country in Europe. Few of these parties existed at the turn of the century. How does this all end?

"Humankind cannot bear very much reality," wrote T. S. Eliot.

Is the West still blind to reality, to the inevitable future that awaits if the West does not secure its frontiers and close its borders to mass immigration?

Peoples of European descent, everywhere they live, have birth rates below replacement levels. Yet, most live in the world's most desirable neighborhoods. 

The great and growing populations of mankind are in the Third World. Countless millions are determined to come to the West, legally if they can, illegally if they must. And the more who succeed, the more who come. 

Either Western nations take tough measures to secure their borders, or the Western nations will be swamped. The character of their countries will be altered forever, and smaller countries will become unrecognizable. And as this is happening, ethnic and racial clashes will become more common, as they are now becoming across Europe.

"The principle that America's immigration laws should serve the interests of its own citizens" is paramount, said Sen. Sessions.

Sessions is right. America is our home. We decide who comes in and who does not, how large the American family becomes, whom we adopt and whence they come. It has become the issue of 2016.

Indeed, it is the issue of the 21st century. 

The Issue of the Century