Category Archives: Obama

#FBI & #StateDept scandal: ArrestThemAll #Wikileaks


The Watergate “smoking gun” was that Nixon suggested the CIA tell the FBI to back off the investigation because of national security reasons. The CIA was never instructed to do so and the FBI did its investigation. Here the Obama State Department “pressured” the FBI to alter documents so Hillary’s story would be believable, and State offered some goodies like slots in overseas embassies. The Obama State Department actually did what Nixon only dreamed and talked about.

On October 15, 2016, Stephen Hayes of the Weekly Standard reported:

“A senior State Department official repeatedly pressed the FBI to change the classification of emails stored on Hillary Clinton’s private server, according to FBI interview summaries set to be released in the coming days. Patrick Kennedy, the undersecretary of state for management, discussed providing additional overseas slots for the FBI in exchange for revisions to classifications of the sensitive emails.”

In plain English, the Obama State Department asked the FBI to phony up the emails marked confidential so the emails were consistent with Hillary’s story. In return the FBI would get some juicy overseas slots. This shows what the Obama State Department thinks of the FBI: the Comey FBI can be bought with a couple of overseas slots.

There is no way that Patrick Kennedy, or anyone at State, would have made the move to the FBI to fix Hillary’s emails unless the move was approved by higher-ups. In these political conspiracies there are “buffers” between guys like Patrick Kennedy and the higher ups. The Obama State Department is run by John Kerry, who does what Obama tells him to do.

This begs for an investigation by an independent prosecutor, and the Senate and House Judiciary Committees should immediately subpoena Kennedy, Kerry, Comey, and the agents involved.

Comey should have revealed this in his July 5 news conference when he listed Hillary’s lies and extreme negligence but gave her a pass.

The FBI has been compromised by Hillary and Obama. Its once sterling reputation is shattered. Comey should have recommended indictment of Hillary along with those who made the offer to phony up the documents. If we had a Justice Department, there would be a grand jury right now issuing subpoenas to the FBI agents and Patrick Kennedy and John Kerry, and all other buffers between Kennedy and Hillary and Obama.

If we had a halfway honest media, right now this would be 24 hour news, with a name for the scandal like Slotgate, State-FBIgate, Fix Hillary’s Emailgate, or some other name.

But where are the Republicans on this? If Republicans did this, Democrats would be all over it, and justifiably, demanding investigations.

McConnell, Ryan, McCain, Romney, and other Republican leaders should be on TV asking why this pressure was applied, who applied it, who ordered it, who stands to benefit from it, and demanding answers from Obama. They should be asking why Obama and Michelle are campaigning every day to help Hillary, which is consistent with the Obama State Department trying to help Hillary.

But the Ryan-McCain Republicans are hiding in the corner denying they know Trump and jumping ship, and giving Obama and Hillary another pass.

Obama and Saudi Arabia


In the wake of Barack Obama’s decision to veto the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA) (and the subsequent overturn of the veto by Congress), many are left wondering if the president’s continued support for Saudi Arabia means turning a blind eye to human rights abuses and terrorists’ agendas in order to protect America’s relationship with kingdom.

It is no secret that Saudi Arabia has attracted widespread criticism for oppression of its own people. In 2015, execution rates soared under the rule of Saudi King Salman, with at least 151 executions taking place across the kingdom, including beheadings of children and those accused of non-lethal offenses, according reports by Amnesty International (AI).

In 2012, Ali al-Nimr, a 17-year-old Saudi-born political dissident, was sentenced to death by beheading, followed by public display of his body via crucifixion, for participating in an Arab Spring-inspired protest. Despite pleas from both the international community, the ruling was upheld by the kingdom’s highest court in 2015; al-Nimr is reportedly still awaiting execution.

The very week that al-Nimr’s death sentence was reported to have been upheld, Saudi Arabia was selected to head a key UN human rights panel — a panel responsible for selecting top human rights officials and reporting on human right abuses worldwide.

“Petro-dollars and politics have trumped human rights” said UN watch director Hillel Neuer in response to Saudi Arabia heading the influential panel.

Yet, when a U.S. State Department spokesman was asked about the appropriateness of the UN council appointment, he replied “we would welcome it.”

Human Rights groups have also recently condemned Saudi Arabia for coalition attacks that violate international war laws, and even constitute war crimes, in a sectarian conflict against Houthi rebels in neighboring Yemen.

Yet, despite protests from various international human rights organizations, the Obama administration has sold more weapons to Saudi Arabia than any other administration. A total of $115 billion worth of bombs, artillery, ammunition, and tanks have been sold to the kingdom in the past eight years amid concerns that the kingdom is in violation of international law. Just last week, AI confirmed that a U.S.-made bomb was used in an attack on a hospital in Yemen.

The commander-in-chief recently further displayed his support for the regime when he vetoed the JASTA bill, stating that it would damage American relations with the kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Obama further argued that the bill would threaten the concept of ‘sovereign immunity’, a legal doctrine that provides protection for states from legal prosecution — despite the fact that several exceptions to the principle already exist.

Indeed, Saudi Arabia has long been suspected of involvement in the 9/11 attacks and many believe that the families of the victims have a right to pursue justice and to determine the extent of the Kingdom’s involvement in the 9/11 attacks.

It was in 2001 that compelling evidence emerged linking various Islamic terror organizations to Saudi-led charities, particularly the High Commission for Relief of Bosnia and Herzegovina (SHC), the largest fundraising effort in the Muslim and Arab world at the time. What is especially alarming about the SHC is that it was headed by then-Prince Salman, who became the King of Saudi Arabia in 2015.

Whether President Obama’s decisions regarding foreign relations with Saudi Arabia are a result of his desire to protect the American alliance with an oil-producing regime, or whether his decisions are a result of his postmodern ideals based on globalism and cultural relativism, is anyone’s guess. Regardless, the president’s continued support of the absolute theocratic monarchy signifies one thing: Saudi Arabia will continue to oppress its own people and contribute to the instability that plagues the Middle East, all while funding terrorism around the globe.

Obama And His Very Confused Middle East Policy


The Obama administration’s policy in the Middle East appears to be designed to remove secular tyrants and replace them with more religiously oriented regimes.  Thus, Gaddafi (“We came, we saw, he died.”  Ha ha ha.) and Mubarak were targeted.  Bashar al Assad is the current target.  This policy has been marked by monumental incompetence, mendacity, and confusion.  Nothing about it should be accepted without a healthy dose of skepticism, including what follows.

The Telegraph of the U.K. has a video of U.S. commandos fleeing a town under a barrage of insults (“Crusaders!  Infidels!  Dogs!  Get out!”) from the Free Syrian Army, our supposed allies.  CENTCOM commander General Lloyd Austin testified that a 500-million-dollar program to train opposition soldier had resulted in “four or five” being trained.  CIA-backed rebels have had armed confrontations with Pentagon-backed forces.  Two of Senator John McCain’s Libyan “heroes,” Abdelhakim Belhadj and the late Abu Mosa, turned out to be ISIS leaders.  Turkish and Saudi allies clearly do not have the same objectives as the U.S.  Former U.S. Department of State senior adviser David Phillips said, “Turkey’s role has not been ambiguous – it has overtly supported the ISIL.”

This confused U.S. policy has led to speculation that the U.S. created and still supplies ISIS.  In an interview with a reporter from the Koelner Stadt-Anzeigernewspaper, Abu Al Ezz, a militant jihadist commander with Jabhat Al-Nusra, claims, “The U.S. is on our side.”  Abu Al Ezz claims that his tanks came from Libya and that they have been supplied with American-made TOW rockets.  He also claimed that “we had officers from Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Israel and America here[.] … Experts in the use of satellites, rockets, reconnaissance and thermal security cameras.”  Al Ezz claimed that Jabhat Al-Nusra broke with ISIS because “[m]ost of the IS leaders are working with intelligence services, and it’s now clear for us. We, the Jabhat Al-Nusra, have our own way.”  Jabhat al-Nusra has been designated a terrorist group by the U.S. and U.N.

Al Ezz’s allegations are supported by documents obtained by Judicial Watch that reveal early U.S. support for ISIS.  The same article reported that U.K.-based Conflict Armament Research’s report traced the origins of Croatian anti-tank rockets recovered from ISIS to a Saudi/CIA joint program via serial numbers.  In 2012, Kenneth R. Timmerman reported that the Taliban fired on a CH-47 helicopter with a Stinger missile.  He reported, “The Stinger [serial number] tracked back to a lot that had been signed out by the CIA recently, not during the anti-Soviet jihad.”  Jihadists have also obtained a “significant” number of tanks and Humvees from their operations in Iraq.  These weapons have undoubtedly led to the deaths of American servicemen.  Attacks on U.S. forces could have been led by released Guantanamo detainees.  The Washington Postreports that at least 12 former detainees have launched attacks against the U.S.

The anti-Assad coalition may also have used poison gas in order to justify a U.S. attack on the Assad regime.  The network nsnbc claims that evidence of approval leads directly to the White House.  Dr. Christof Lehmann has done an extensive study on the gas attack.  Investigative reporter Seymour Hersh claims that Hillary Clinton approved sending the gas to Syria.  Although this attack was to be attributed to the Assad regime, the evidence would not justify a U.S. attack. German intelligence claimed that it had intercepted phone calls between Syrian officers and the Syrian High Command that convinced them that none of the Syrian forces has used a chemical weapon.

Al Ezz also commented ten days prior to the attack on the aid convoy bound for Aleppo that Jabhat Al-Nusra would not allow the aid to go through.  The aid convoy was attacked on September 15, resulting in 20 civilian fatalities.  U.S. Marine Gen. Joseph Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified that he had no doubt that it was a Russian attack and called it an “unacceptable atrocity.”  He based this on the fact that two Russian aircraft were in the area of the strike when it happened, but he admitted he “had no facts.”

Secretary of state John Kerry has proposed grounding Syrian and Russian aircraft over Syria.  However, according to General Dunford, “Right now … for us to control all of the airspace in Syria would require us to go to war against Syria and Russia.”  Defense secretary Ash Carter stated that U.S. jets conduct their strikes “with exceptional precision … that no other country can match.”  He said this after U.S. airplanes struck a Syrian base at Dayr Az Zawr.  CENTCOM declared that they halted this airstrike when they were informed by Russian officials that the target hit by U.S. airplanes may have been a Syrian Arab Army base.  There is no evidence of coordination, but ISIS assaulted and overran the Syrian Army base right after the U.S. airstrike.

The Dayr Az Zawr attack may have been the result of relying on intelligence provided by anti-Assad forces.  Apparently, U.S. intelligence does not have a good reputation.  Volker Perthes, director of the German Institute for International and Security Affairs in Berlin, has stated, “Everyone is extremely skeptical about U.S. intelligence revelations.”  A congressional task force has confirmed allegations that senior U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) leaders manipulated intelligence assessments in 2014 and 2015 to make it appear that President Barack Obama is winning the war against the Islamic State.”  And two senior intelligence analysts at CENTCOM say the military forced them out of their jobs because of their skeptical reporting on U.S.-backed rebel groups in Syria.

A spokesman for the Syrian military called the Dayr Az Zawr strike a “serious and blatant attack on Syria and its military” and “firm proof of the U.S. support of Daesh.”  (Daesh is the Arabic acronym for ISIS.)  A Russian foreign ministry spokeswoman, Maria Zakharova, announced, “The White House is defending Islamic State. Now there can be no doubts about that.”  Our U.N. ambassador, Samantha Power, said Zakharova should be embarrassed by that claim.

It is not only Russians and Syrians who question U.S. policy.  U.S. Air Force Lt. Gen. Tom McInerney has claimed, “We are not trying to destroy ISIS.”  Daniel McAdams, executive director of the Ron Paul Institute, asserted, “The CIA agenda is definitely not anti-ISIS [Daesh], it’s primarily anti-Assad.”  Russian prime minister Dmitry Medvedev claimed, “The strengthening of the Islamic State became possible partially due to irresponsible policies of the United States.”

Naturally, U.S. policy has led to increased tension.  U.S. ambassador to the U.N.Samantha Power stated, “It’s apocalyptic what is being done in eastern Aleppo.”  She may be closer to the truth than she realizes.  State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki told the press, “I think when American lives are at stake, when we’re talking about defending our own interests, we’re not looking for the approval of the Syrian regime.”  Why is the State Department so unconcerned about Syrian airspace yet scrupulous about Libyan airspace when an ambassador is under attack?

John Dietrich is a freelance writer and the author of The Morgenthau Plan: Soviet Influence on American Postwar Policy, Algora Publishing, 2013.