Obama Tells 18 Million Immigrants They Can Skip Pledge To Defend America ...!

Obama Tells 18 Million Immigrants They Can Skip Pledge To Defend America by Geoffrey Grider Under the Obama administration’s expansive interpretation of executive authority,  legal immigrants seeking citizenship through the nation’s Naturalization process are now exempt from a key part of the Oath of Allegiance. Immigrants seeking to become citizens no longer have to pledge to “bear arms on behalf of the United States.” They can opt out of that part of the Oath. Nor do they have to cite any specific religious belief that forbids them to perform military service.   According to the Naturalization Fact Sheet on the US Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) website, In the fiscal year ending June 30, 2015, the nation welcomed 729,995 Legal Permanent Residents into full citizenship. Over the past decade 6.6 million have been naturalized through a process that ends with the Oath of Allegiance. In the decade 1980-1990, the average number completing Naturalization was only 220,000 annually, but from 1990 to 2000 that number jumped to over 500,000  annually. 1,050,399  new citizens were welcomed in the year 2008. 18.7 million immigrants are eligible to eventually become citizens, and 8.8 million already meet the 5-year residency requirement. The pledge to help defend America was good enough for the 6.6 million immigrants naturalized since 2005 and good enough for the over 15 million naturalized since 1980, but Obama’s appointees at the USCIS think that is too much to ask of the 18.7 million estimated legal immigrants eligible today for eventual naturalization or the 750,000 who will be naturalized in the coming year. This radical change was announced a year ago, in July of 2015. Congress did not enact the change in new legislation. There was no congressional debate, no filibuster in the US Senate, and no sit-in in the House to demand that a bill to repeal the USCIS action be brought to a vote. No, this radical change was implemented while Congress slept. Like other Obama actions to undermine our immigration laws, the Republican-controlled Congress has not used its constitutional powers to reverse the administrative action. Thank God many states are stepping up to fill that void. This week, the US Supreme Court let stand a federal district court ruling invalidating Obama’s unconstitutional “DAPA” amnesty. By a 4-4 tie vote, the Supreme Court declined to review the Circuit Court’s ruling upholding the Houston district court decision. Therefore, it is now the law and Obama’s DAPA amnesty is voided. If Justice Scalia were still alive and participating in the case, it would have been a 5-4 ruling because the “swing vote,” Associate Justice Kennedy, voted with Justices Alito, Roberts and Thomas. Where was Congress? Why did it take a lawsuit by the Governors and Attorneys General of 26 states to overturn Obama’s unconstitutional actions? It’s true that other Presidents have made changes in the Naturalization process by administrative decree and without congressional approval. In 2002, in the wake of the 9-11 terrorist attack, President George Bush by executive order expedited the naturalization process for 89,000 immigrants serving in the armed forces. While many will agree with Bush’s action and even applaud, that change should have been done by act of Congress, not a presidential executive order. In fact, most Americans will think it extremely odd that the USCIS action with regard to the Oath of Allegiance is not illegal. But the fact is, unelected bureaucrats at the USCIS can change the wording of the Oath without approval of the people’s representatives in Congress. Strange as it sounds, the law as it stands today allows USCIS bureaucrats great leeway in managing the Naturalization process, so Obama’s actions will not be challenged in federal court. Yet, in view of Obama’s actions, why doesn’t Congress change the law and take control of the Oath of Allegiance? So far, there is no indication that the Republican leadership will do so. If they won’t even bar Islamic terrorists from the refugee program, why should we expect them to protect the Oath of Allegiance? Some members of Congress will grumble, make speeches and issue press releases, but the Republican leadership will do nothing. Such is the state of the nation as we approach this 240th anniversary of the  Declaration of Independence. Some Americans see great irony in the British declaring their independence from the tyranny of Brussels while Americans quietly accept the new tyranny of Washington, DC. source

Brexit: The Nation is Back! Is France next?

Brexit: The Nation is Back! by Yves Mamou  •  June 25, 2016 at 5:00 am In France, before the British vote, the weekly JDD conducted an online poll with one question: Do you want France out of the EU? 88% of people answered "YES!" In none of the countries the surveyed was there much support for transferring power to Brussels. To calm a possible revolt of millions of poor and unemployed people, countries such as France have maintained a high level of social welfare spending, by borrowing money on international debt markets to pay unemployment insurance benefits, as well as pensions for retired people. Today, France's national debt is 96.1% of GDP. In 2008, it was 68%. In the past few years, these poor and old people have seen a drastic change in their environment: the butcher has become halal, the café does not sell alcohol anymore, and most women in the streets are wearing veils. Even the McDonald's in France have become halal. What is reassuring is that the "Leave" people waited for a legal way to express their protest. They did not take guns or knives to kill Jews or Muslims: they voted. They waited an opportunity to express their feelings. Marine Le Pen, leader of the Front National, celebrates the Brexit vote under a sign reading, "And Now: France!", June 24, 2016. "How quickly the unthinkable became the irreversible" writes The Economist. They are talking about Brexit, of course. The question of today is: Who could have imagined that British people were so tired of being members of The Club? The question of tomorrow is: What country will be next? In France, before the British vote, the weekly JDD conducted an online poll with one question: Do you want France out of the EU? 88% of people answered "YES!" This is not a scientific result, but it is nevertheless an indication. A recent -- and more scientific -- survey for Pew Research found that in France, a founding member of "Europe," only 38% of people still hold a favorable view of the EU, six points lower than in Britain. In none of the countries surveyed was there much support for transferring power to Brussels. Continue Reading Article

Supreme Court's split decision keeps lid on Obama's DAPA amnesty, but issue is far from over...

FRI, JUN 24th

Pres. Obama promised yesterday that he won't be deporting anybody who qualified for his biggest amnesty despite the Supreme Court's refusal to allow the amnesty. But he also indicated that he doesn't have an idea of anything else he can do while president to give work permits and other benefits to those nearly 5 million illegal aliens. 

While the impact of the split decision is a victory for American workers in the interim, we would have much preferred a majority decision by the Court that struck down the President's actions altogether.

Nevertheless, with the 4-4 tie, the Court upheld the injunction put in place by U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen, temporarily stopping the issuance of work permits. Judge Hanen has ruled only on the injunction, so over the next several months, he'll begin considering the merits of the 26 states' case against the President's actions.

In all likelihood, the ultimate fate of Pres. Obama's 2014 DAPA executive amnesty will fall on November's elections since Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump have different stances on the issue. 

If Hillary Clinton is elected, she has vowed to go even further than Pres. Obama on executive action. If Judge Hanen decides permanently against the DAPA amnesty on the merits, Clinton would likely challenge the verdict all the way to the Supreme Court where it can be heard by the current Justices and whomever she appoints (who would likely be sympathetic to executive actions). Donald Trump, on the other hand, has vowed to end DAPA and DACA.

It's important to remember that Pres. Obama's 2012 DACA amnesty (for nearly a million younger illegal aliens) is still in effect because it wasn't part of the 26-state lawsuit. So if Clinton is elected, she'll be able to continue Pres. Obama's DACA program.

In yesterday's 4-4 tie decision, the Justices didn't even show their individual hands. Neither side issued an opinion, so we don't know if the four Justices who supported Judge Hanen's injunction did so on his reasoning that the Administration didn't follow the federal rule-making process or if they truly believe that Pres. Obama's actions are unconstitutional.

Still, let's not sell short the impact of yesterday's decision. For the time being, the DAPA work permit program is on hold and millions of struggling Americans won't have to face a massive influx of amnestied illegal aliens able to legally compete for every job in America

Perhaps the greatest example of salvational differences in the entire Bible is that New Testament saints in the Church Age can never lose their salvation or the presence of the Holy Spirit, but that was absolutely not the case for Old Testament saints

NTEB CHALLENGE: Can You Answer These 5 Questions About Dispensational Salvation? by Bro. Jimmy Randolph Perhaps the greatest example of salvational differences in the entire Bible is that New Testament saints in the Church Age can never lose their salvation or the presence of the Holy Spirit, but that was absolutely not the case for Old Testament saints. If there is only one salvation plan, what changed? "Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God; Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints:" Colossians 1:25,26 (KJV) Many Christians will write into us, and take issue with our stand that the Bible teaches how God administers salvation over different dispensations. Some Christians don't even acknowledge that there are different dispensations. Funny thing, though, when Paul started his ministry he revealed "mysteries" that the apostles had never even heard of. Peter ends 2 Peter with the admonition that wrestling with Paul's doctrine, very different from the rest of the apostle's doctrine, would lead to your own destruction if you don't approach it according to 2 Timothy 2:15. No difference in salvation plans, you say? Ha! Guess again. "And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all hisepistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction." 2 Peter 15,16 (KJV) So we thought it would be a good time to see who is able to answer any or all of the following 5 questions regarding the differences in dispensational salvation. When replying, please use KJV scripture to support your position if you would like a reply. Have fun! If salvation is the same for everyone throughout the entire Bible, then: Why didn’t Old Testament saints go straight to Heaven after they died like New Testament Christians do?  One of the hallmark attributes of a Christian is that because we are born again, we go immediately to Heaven when we die with no stops in-between. The Church Age has lasted so long we just assume that it was like this for all the saints who came before us. But not so. The Thief on the Cross had the wonderful good fortune to die at the side of the Saviour of the whole world. That got him into Paradise but not Heaven right away. "And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise." Luke 23:43 (KJV) "We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord." 2 Corinthians 5:8 (KJV) Why were Old Testament saints mandated to shed animal blood and burnt sacrifices for sins while New Testament Christians are not? There is not a single Christian in the entire Church Age that was ever required to make an animal sacrifice as an atonement for sins. But in the Old Testament, failure to do so could send you to Hell. Things that are different are not the same, obviously.  "And it was so, when the days of their feasting were gone about, that Job sent and sanctified them, and rose up early in the morning, and offered burnt offerings according to the number of them all: for Job said, It may be that my sons have sinned, and cursed God in their hearts. Thus did Job continually." Job 1:5 (KJV) Why did God not justify the wicked in the Old Testament, but justifies the ungodly in the New Testament? Again, the differences could not be more obvious and apparent. Did God change His mind from one testament to the other or is the Bible teaching dispensational differences? "God is jealous, and the LORD revengeth; the LORD revengeth, and is furious; the LORD will take vengeance on his adversaries, and he reserveth wrath for his enemies. The LORD is slow to anger, and great in power, and will not at all acquit the wicked: the LORD hath his way in the whirlwind and in the storm, and the clouds are the dust of his feet." Nahum 1:2,3 (KJV) "But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness." Romans 4:5 (KJV) Why did Jesus say eternal life is given through keeping the commandments but Paul says that eternal life is given not by works of righteousness which we have done? Jesus in Matthew and Paul in Titus are giving two very conflicting instructions on how to have eternal life in Heaven. Paul's doctrine absolutely conflicts with that of Jesus, yet Paul says it was Jesus that taught him that doctrine. If dispensational differences don't exist in the Bible, then good luck explaining this one! "And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments." Matthew 19:16,17 (KJV) "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour; That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life." Titus 3:5-7 (KJV) Why could the Holy Spirit leave an Old Testament saint but is sealed in the New Testament Christian? Perhaps the greatest example of salvational differences in the entire Bible is that New Testament saints in the Church Age can never lose their salvation or the presence of the Holy Spirit, but that was absolutely not the case for Old Testament saints. If there is only one salvation plan, what changed? "Cast me not away from thy presence; and take not thy holy spirit from me." Psalm 51:11 (KJV) "But the Spirit of the LORD departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the LORD troubled him." 1 Samuel 16:14 (KJV) "That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ. In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory." Ephesians 1:12-14 (KJV)

CLINTON CALENDAR HIDES 75 MEETINGS WITH DONORS...

• CLINTON CALENDAR HIDES 75 MEETINGS WITH DONORS…

by STEPHEN BRAUN  |  published on June 24, 2016

An Associated Press review of the official calendar Hillary Clinton kept as secretary of state identified at least 75 meetings with longtime political donors, Clinton Foundation contributors and corporate and other outside interests that were not recorded or omitted the names of those she met. The fuller details of those meetings were included in files the State Department turned over to AP after it sued the government in federal court.

The missing entries raise new questions about how Clinton and her inner circle handled government records documenting her State Department tenure — in this case, why the official chronology of her four-year term does not closely mirror the other, more detailed records of her daily meetings.

At a time when Clinton’s private email system is under scrutiny by an FBI criminal investigation, the calendar omissions reinforce concerns that she sought to eliminate the “risk of the personal being accessible” — as she wrote in an email exchange that she failed to turn over to the government but was subsequently uncovered in a top aide’s inbox.

The AP found the omissions by comparing the 1,500-page calendar with separate planning schedules supplied to Clinton by aides in advance of each day’s events. The names of at least 114 outsiders who met with Clinton were missing from her calendar, the records show.

Read the full article: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/national-politics/article85708367.html

Read more at 1776 Coalition: http://www.1776coalition.com/rise-up-1/clinton-calendar-hides-75-meetings-with-donors#ixzz4CYTn93MK

They Are Putting Armed Guards On Food Trucks In Venezuela...

---

They Are Putting Armed Guards On Food Trucks In Venezuela Posted: 23 Jun 2016 08:38 PM PDT We are watching what happens when the economy of a developed nation totally implodes.  Just a few years ago, Venezuela was the wealthiest nation in all of South America, and they still have more proven oil reserves than anyone else on the entire planet including Saudi Arabia.  But now people down there are so hungry and so desperate that some of them are actually hunting dogs, cats and pigeons for food.  Just a few days ago, I gave a talk down at Morningside during which I warned that someday we would see armed guards on food trucks in America.  After that talk was done, I went back up to my room and I came across a New York Times article which had been republished by MSN that explained that this exact thing is already happening down in Venezuela… With delivery trucks under constant attack, the nation’s food is now transported under armed guard. Soldiers stand watch over bakeries. The police fire rubber bullets at desperate mobs storming grocery stores, pharmacies and butcher shops. A 4-year-old girl was shot to death as street gangs fought over food. Venezuela is convulsing from hunger. Hundreds of people here in the city of Cumaná, home to one of the region’s independence heroes, marched on a supermarket in recent days, screaming for food. They forced open a large metal gate and poured inside. They snatched water, flour, cornmeal, salt, sugar, potatoes, anything they could find, leaving behind only broken freezers and overturned shelves. All over the country, people are standing in extremely long lines day after day hoping to get some food.  Sometimes the food trucks don’t bring anything, and sometimes it is just scraps like fish heads and rotten fruit.  To get a better idea of what life is like in Venezuela right now, just check out this YouTube video… As people down in Venezuela get hungrier and hungrier, extreme desperation is setting in.  And with extreme desperation comes crime and violence… A 4-year-old girl, Britani Lara, was reportedly shot to death Tuesday in the Caracas suburb of Guatire as she stood in line with her mother outside a  government-owned Mercal grocery store. El Nacional newspaper reported that gangs on motorcycles have fought over the right to control and distribute food at the Guatire store and that the gunfire may have been a result of  that dispute. Eight others were reportedly injured in the incident. Violence also was reported at a food protest staged in front of a store in the city of Cariaco in central Sucre state, where 21-year-old Luis Fuentes was killed by a gunshot. Eleven others were wounded, according to El Nacional newspaper. Could you imagine living in a nation where all this is going on? Most Americans could not even conceive of such a thing.  But of course the truth is that up until just recently most Venezuelans could not either.  In fact, just a couple years ago Venezuela was one of the most prosperous nations in all of South America… Two years ago, Venezuela was a normal functioning nation, relatively speaking of course. It was by no means a free country, but the people still had a standard of living that was higher than most developing nations. Venezuelans could still afford the basic necessities of life, and a few luxuries too. They could send their children to school and expect them to receive a reasonably good education, and they could go to the hospital and expect to be effectively treated with the same medical standards you’d find in a developed nation. They could go to the grocery store and buy whatever they needed, and basic government services like law enforcement and infrastructure maintenance worked fairly well. The system was far from perfect, but it worked for the most part. There are all sorts of signs that the thin veneer of civilization that we all take for granted in the United States is starting to crumble as well.  If you follow End Of The American Dream on a regular basis, you know that I post articles about this theme all the time.  But today I just want to share one tidbit with you.  Reuters is reporting that the number of heroin users in this country has nearly tripled since 2003, and the number of heroin-related deaths is now about five times higher than it was in the year 2000… A heroin “epidemic” is gripping the United States, where cheap supply has helped push the number of users to a 20-year high, increasing drug-related deaths, the United Nations said on Thursday. According to the U.N.’s World Drug Report 2016, the number of heroin users in the United States reached around one million in 2014, almost three times as many as in 2003. Heroin-related deaths there have increased five-fold since 2000. “There is really a huge epidemic (of) heroin in the U.S.,” said Angela Me, the chief researcher for the report which was released on Thursday. Just like Venezuela, our society is rotting too.  As I have warned before, the exact same things that are happening down there right now are coming here too. It is just a matter of time. On a side note, I would like to congratulate the British people for voting for independence from the European Union.  As I have been writing this article, the results have been coming in, and at this point it looks like victory is virtually assured for the “Leave” campaign. I would have voted “Leave” myself if I lived in the United Kingdom, but let there be no doubt about what comes next.  Uncertainty and chaos are going to reign in European financial markets, and we have already seen the biggest one day drop in the history of the British pound.  There is going to be short-term economic and financial pain, but the people of the United Kingdom have done the right thing for their children and their grandchildren, and for that they are to be applauded. *About the author: Michael Snyder is the founder and publisher of End Of The American Dream. Michael’s controversial new book about Bible prophecy entitled “The Rapture Verdict” is available in paperback and for the Kindle on Amazon.com.*

Homeland Security Chief, Top Aides Were Exempted from Personal Email Ban Secretary Clinton was not the only top Obama administration skirting email rules and putting our nation’s security at risk...

Homeland Security Chief, Top Aides Were Exempted from Personal Email Ban

 Secretary Clinton was not the only top Obama administration skirting email rules and putting our nation’s security at risk.

A new batch 693 pages of Department of Homeland Security records revealing that Secretary Jeh Johnson and 28 other agency officials used government computers to access personal, web-based email accounts -- despite an agency-wide ban due to heightened security concerns.

The documents also reveal that Homeland Security officials misled Rep. Scott Perry (R-PA) when Perry specifically asked whether personal accounts were being used for official government business.

Moreover, the practice continued even after the Clinton email revelations.

We received the records in response to a February 2016 court order by a U.S. District Court following our Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit (Judicial Watch v. Department of Homeland Security (No. 1:15-cv-01772)).

We filed the lawsuit in October 2015 after the DHS failed to comply with a July 2015 FOIA request seeking the following:

• All requests (in any form) submitted by senior DHS officials for waivers to use personal Web-based email accounts on government-owned computers.
• Copies of all waivers granted to senior DHS officials to use personal Web-based email accounts on government-owned computers.

We initiated this inquiry after a Bloomberg News report revealing that 29 high-level Homeland Security officials, including Johnson, obtained exemptions from a February 2014 agency-wide ban on the use of web-based email systems due to increased security concerns.  The waivers were granted despite security officials’ warning of the risks of malicious attacks and data exfiltration from webmail use.

Included among the records is a February 19, 2014  memorandum from security officials at the Department of Homeland Security strongly warning: “According to the Office of the Chief Information Officer, access to webmail using DHS networks is responsible for almost half of all attempts to compromise DHS network security.”  The memo explains that webmail use resulted in 14 Trojan-Horse attacks in August 2013 and 25 attacks in December 2013 on Homeland Security computer networks.

As a result, in the same memo, Department of Homeland Security officials imposed a total ban on employee use of web-based email systems:

New restrictions are being implemented that will no longer allow employee access to personal webmail sites from government computers [Emphasis added].  This action is being taken to strengthen cybersecurity and enhance protection of the Department’s computer networks.  Effective tonight, access to webmail sites like AOL, Hotmail, Comcast, Gmail, Yahoo, and other email services will be prohibited.

The records reveal  that despite this strict prohibition, Johnson was given an exemption from the ban on the first day of its implementation simply because he liked to check his personal email from the office everyday.  In an April 7, 2014, email, DHS Deputy Director for Scheduling and Protocol Mary Ellen Brown wrote to DHS Chief of Staff for the Under Secretary for Management Vincent Micone: “Hi Vince – I wanted to flag that S1 [Secretary Johnson] accesses his [redacted] account every day and I didn’t know if we could add his computer to the waiver list? Let us know at your convenience. Thanks! ME”

Micone responds several minutes later: “ME, This will be done… no problem. Thanks, Vince”

The documents also reveal  that on April 29, 2014, Connie LaRossa, then-director of legislative affairs for Homeland Security, was granted a waiver to use her web-based email account for official government business.  The justification LaRossa used for requesting access to Yahoo email was that some congressional staffers wanted to send her “political information” that they “do not want to transmit via government mail.”

Despite LaRossa’s waiver, in answers prepared in April 7, 2014, for Rep. Scott Perry, in response to his query about the use of personal email accounts for official business, Homeland Security explicitly denied it was being done. In  one question, Rep. Perry asked:

“Are DHS officials permitted to maintain private email accounts that are used to conduct official business?  If so, who and under what circumstances?”

Homeland Security officially responded:

“To date, no requests have been approved to use a private email account for official business.”

Other top Homeland Security officials receiving waivers permitting them to use personal, web-based email on government computers included:

ANMS2 [Alejandro N. Mayorkas, deputy secretary]
Bunnell, Stevan E. [general counsel]
Chavez, Richard [director of the Office of Operations Coordination]
Gottfried, Jordan [Chief of Staff]
JCJ [Jeh Charles Johnson, secretary of Homeland Security]
Kronisch, Matthew [associate general counsel (Intelligence)] 
Marrone, Christian [chief of staff]
Meyer, Jonathan [deputy general counsel]
Rosen, Paul [deputy chief of staff]
Shahoulian, David [deputy general counsel]
Silvers, Robert [deputy chief of staff]
Taylor, Francis X [undersecretary for intelligence and analysis]
Veitch, Alenandra [acting deputy assistant secretary]
Waters, Erin [director of strategic communication]

The use of personal email accounts on Homeland Security computers continued for more than a year after the official ban was put in place in April 2014, until July 2015 – over four months after revelations about Hillary Clinton’s controversial email practices.

In a July 20, 2015,  email, Luke McCormack, then-Chief Information Officer of the Justice Department, ordered Jeanne Etzel, Executive Director of Homeland Security’s Next Generation Program, to “pull down” the personal “webmail” email accounts of the 29 Department of Homeland Security executives previously approved to use personal email accounts, except for that of Secretary Jeh Johnson [“S1”].

McCormack ordered this at the “DUSM’s direction” (Deputy Undersecretary for Management, Charles Fulghum).  This order came the same day a Bloomberg story was published regarding Homeland Security officials “bending the rules” on personal email use on government computers.  The next day, Secretary Johnson’s webmail access also was blocked.

Last October it was widely reported that the personal email accounts of both Jeh Johnson and CIA Director John Brennan had been hacked.

Jeh Johnson and top officials at Homeland Security put the nation’s security at risk by using personal email despite significant security issues.  We know now that security rules were bent and broken to allow many these top Homeland Security officials to use “personal” emails to conduct government business.

This new Obama administration email scandal is just getting started.  If the waivers were appropriate, they wouldn’t have been dropped like a hot potato as soon as they were discovered by the media.

 

Judicial Watch Uncovers New Smoking Gun Clinton Emails... Clinton IT Official Takes “The Fifth” In Judicial Watch Deposition

Judicial Watch Uncovers New Smoking Gun Clinton Emails This week we learned more about the problems former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s staff faced in keeping her separate email system running.  They were, in fact, wrestling with matters of national security. The revelations came thanks to our prying loose the email records referred to in the May 2016 State Department’s Office of the Inspector General report criticizing former Secretary of State Clinton’s email practices.  The OIG report makes reference to the emails but they were not released to the public until now.  We obtained them under a June 14, 2016, court order issued by U.S. District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan in accordance with an unopposed motion by Judicial Watch to obtain the records.  As an explosive Associated Press  article makes clear, these new emails raise more questions: Former Secretary Hillary Clinton failed to turn over a copy of a key message involving problems caused by her use of a private homebrew email server, the State Department confirmed Thursday. The disclosure makes it unclear what other work-related emails may have been deleted by the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee. We received these documents in connection with our Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit seeking records about the controversial employment status of Huma Abedin, Clinton’s then-deputy chief of staff (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:13-cv-01363)).  The full case history of the Abedin employment lawsuit is accessible on the Judicial Watch website. Here are the records: A. March 17, 2009 memorandum prepared by S/ES-IRM staff regarding communications equipment in the Secretary’s New York residence identified a server located in the basement.  (This email shows early on that the Obama State Department was very much aware of Mrs. Clinton’s email server, down to its very location in her house!) B. In November 2010, Secretary Clinton and her Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations discussed the fact that  Secretary Clinton’s emails to Department employees were not being received. The Deputy Chief of Staff emailed the Secretary that “we should talk about putting you on state email or releasing your email address to the department so you are not going to spam.”  In response, the Secretary wrote, “Let’s get separate address or device but I don’t want any risk of the personal being accessible.”  (This is the smoking gun email that Mrs. Clinton evidently withheld, according to the AP. ) C. In another email exchange, the Director of S/ES-IRM noted that an email account and address had already been set up for the Secretary and also stated that “you should be aware that any email would go through the Department’s infrastructure and subject to FOIA searches.” D. OIG reviewed emails showing communications between Department staff and both individuals concerning operational issues affecting the Secretary’s email and server from 2010 through at least October 2012.  These records show that State Department systems were altered to allow Mrs. Clinton special email system to operate on State Department computer networks.  As  Investor’s Business Daily opined, this “accommodation” also put the State Department computer networks at risk. E. On January 9, 2011, the non-Departmental advisor to President Clinton who provided technical support to the Clinton email system notified the Secretary’s Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations that he had to shut down the server because he believed “someone was trying to hack us and while they did not get in i didnt [sic] want to let them have the chance to.”  Later that day, the advisor again wrote to the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations, “We were attacked again so I shut [the server] down for a few min.” On January 10, the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations emailed the Chief of Staff and the Deputy Chief of Staff for Planning and instructed them not to email the Secretary “anything sensitive” and stated that she could “explain more in person.” These new records show that Secretary Clinton had zero interest in disclosing her emails to the public as the law requires.  And the emails show that the Obama State Department gave special accommodations to Clinton’s email system, which the agency knew was unsecure, was likely hacked, and was not transparent under FOIA. Clinton IT Official Takes “The Fifth” In Judicial Watch Deposition Earlier this week, we released the deposition transcript of former State Department IT political appointee Bryan Pagliano, who repeatedly invoked his Fifth Amendment right to not answer questions. Pagliano was the Clinton State Department IT official who reportedly provided support for the Clinton email system. The deposition transcript is available here. Pagliano asserted his Fifth Amendment right to many key questions about the clintonemail.com system – including whether the system was set up to thwart the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA); any email-related discussions with Clinton and her top aides; how the system was set up; whether Clinton deleted government records; and recent discussions he may have had with Clinton’s lawyers about the email issue.  Pagliano made the following statement in response to these and other questions: On the advice of counsel, I will decline to answer your question in reliance on my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Pagliano, at the direction of his lawyer, simply did not answer other questions, such as who was paying for his legal representation. Pagliano is among seven depositions  of former Clinton top aides and State Department officials that Judicial Watch has scheduled over the next two weeks.  The next witness is Huma Abedin, Clinton’s then-deputy chief of staff and a senior advisor throughout Clinton’s four years as Secretary of State and who also had an email account on the clintonemail.com system.  Abedin is scheduled to be deposed Tuesday, June 28.   Under Secretary for Management Patrick F. Kennedy is scheduled to testify on Wednesday, June 29. This discovery arises in a Judicial Watch FOIA lawsuit  that seeks records about the controversial employment status of Huma Abedin, former deputy chief of staff to Clinton.  The lawsuit was reopened because of revelations about the clintonemail.com system. (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:13-cv-01363)).  Judge Sullivan ordered that all deposition transcripts be made publicly available. As you might imagine, the media widely covered this development. The headlines include As you might imagine, the media widely covered this development. The headlines include Clinton IT specialist invokes 5th more than 125 times in deposition, Clinton IT aide who set up email server asserts 5th Amendment in civil deposition,  and Hillary's secret server aide invokes Fifth Amendment ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY FIVE times. You can watch television coverage, featuring interviews of my Judicial Watch colleagues, here and here.

BREAKING: Lewinsky's Statement to Hillary...

Monica Lewinsky released the following statement on HillaryClinton's run for President:

 

"I will not vote for Hillary Clinton. The last Clinton Presidency left a bad taste in my mouth. 

 

As we get closer to November of this election year, citizens must remember that they cannot trust Hillary Clinton to create American jobs. The last time she had a meaningful job, she outsourced it to me. And I simply blew it”.