Tag Archives: Clinton

Filmmaker Hillary & Obama Framed Still Rots in Prison

By

311310The mainstream press has suddenly woken up to the Obama administration’s trashing of the First Amendment after one of their own – the Associated Press – became the administration’s latest target. But the mainstream press and self-styled civil liberties groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union disgracefully chose to ignore the canary in the coal mine. He is the hapless and forgotten video producer Mark Basseley Youssef, an Egyptian-born Christian and U.S. citizen whose First Amendment rights have been sacrificed at the altar of the Obama administration’s accommodations to the Muslim world.

Youssef has been rotting in jail in California on trumped up charges since September 27, 2012. Youssef’s real offense was to produce the anti-Islam video the Obama administration falsely blamed for the attack in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012.  The truth is that Islamist jihadists took the lives of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans in a pre-mediated terrorist attack.  The Obama administration knew the real cause of the violence well before it chose to make Youssef and his crude video the scapegoat.

Youssef was on probation after being convicted on federal financial fraud charges in Los Angeles in 2010 and serving approximately a year of his twenty-one month sentence in prison.  One of the conditions of his probation was that he was barred from using “any online service at any location” without the prior approval of his probation officer. While on probation he produced the anti-Islam video. He used aliases and brought in actors who were allegedly not aware of the real purpose behind the roles they had been asked to play. No doubt he had violated the terms of his probation, which could be used to justify revocation of the probation and his return to prison. However, the public display of Youssef being hauled in, his being held in solitary confinement according to his lawyer, his shackling in court and the threat of a new prison sentence in excess of the sentence for which he was originally convicted all point to one thing: The Obama administration’s goal all along was to punish Youssef for blasphemy against Islam – a crime under Sharia law – and to make sure that the Muslim world was fully aware of the punishment. Youssef’s probation violations served merely as a pretext.

Indeed, spontaneous mob violence in response to the video became central to the false narrative that the Obama administration concocted. It was trying to cover up its own failure to secure the Benghazi consulate adequately against the potential danger of an Islamist terrorist attack about which the CIA had previously warned. The video provided an alternative justification for what triggered the violence. The Obama administration’s public display of resolve to catch and prosecute the video producer was meant for the Muslim world’s consumption.

E-mails recently released show how the State Department pressured the CIA to remove any specific reference to al Qaeda and to remove the adjective “Islamic” before the word “extremists” from the infamous talking points that were supposed to inform the American people about the Benghazi attack. State Department and White House officials wanted to retain the talking points’ assessment that “the demonstrations” (replacing the word “attacks”) were believed to have been “spontaneously inspired by the protests at the US Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct attack against the US Consulate and subsequently its annex.” However, they insisted on omitting the unambiguous CIA statement in its earlier drafts of the talking points that “we do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qa’ida participated in the attack.”

State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland got involved in the back-and-forth on the talking points. In one email dated September 14, 2012, she expressed her frustration that the CIA had not gone far enough to satisfy her own “issues or those of my building leadership.”

Who did Nuland have in mind when she referred to her “building leadership”? We do not know for sure if it was then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton herself. However, what we do know is that Clinton was busy pushing the video narrative at the very same time as these e-mail exchanges were taking place. Indeed, on September 14, 2012 – the same day as Nuland’s e-mail citing the unresolved issues of her “building leadership” – Hillary Clinton hammered away at the video. At a memorial service at Andrews Air Force attended by President Obama, Hillary Clinton and family members of the fallen heroes, Clinton vowed to the father of Navy Seal Tyrone Woods, who was killed in the attack, that the Obama administration would “arrest and prosecute” the producer of the video.  In her remarks at the service, she denounced the “awful Internet video that we had nothing to do with” as the cause of the violence.

Clinton was not alone in pushing the false video narrative. President Obama told the United Nations General Assembly on September 25, 2012 that a “crude and disgusting video” was responsible for sparking “outrage throughout the Muslim world.” Obama delivered this distortion of the truth on the world stage two weeks after the Benghazi attack, by which time there was no doubt the Benghazi attack was a pre-mediated Islamist terrorist assault that had nothing to do with Youssef’s video.

Obama declared to the General Assembly: “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.” Just two days after Obama’s UN speech – and barely two weeks after then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s vow to the Benghazi victims’ families to “arrest and prosecute” the video producer – Youssef was arrested and held without bail. The charge was that Youssef had violated the terms of his probation linked to his prior conviction for the non-violent crime of bank fraud.

The Obama administration would settle for nothing else than significant jail time for Youssef.  It wanted to send him away for at least two years, more than the term of his original sentence and far in excess of a sentencing guideline range for a probation violation of four to 10 months. Moreover, Youssef had already served approximately a year of his original 21 month sentence for which he does not appear to have been given full credit in determining his sentence for violation of the terms of his probation.

The Obama administration brought in the Criminal Division chief for the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Los Angeles, Robert Dugdale, to personally handle Youssef’s case. Dugdale usually handles such high profile cases as a Mexican Mafia trial, not violations of probation for non-violent crimes. Indeed, according to his office’s website, the Criminal Division led by Dugdale consists of approximately 190 Assistant United States Attorneys and 70 support staff. There were plenty of lower level attorneys to deal with Youssef’s case if it were truly a typical instance of a probation violation or a garden variety fraud case.

Dugdale’s Criminal Division website states: “As a result of the events of September 11, 2001, DOJ [Department of Justice], of which the USAO [United States Attorney’s Office] is a part, has refocused its efforts to prevent terrorist crimes before they occur and to bring those who participate in the planning and execution of such crimes to justice. This is the first priority of both DOJ and the USAO.”

Yet while the jihadist terrorists who committed the murders in Benghazi remain at large, the Obama administration decided to use the Los Angeles U.S. Attorney’s Office Criminal Division chief to make Youssef the scapegoat, in order to prove to the Muslim world that it would spare no effort to punish “those who slander the prophet of Islam.”

Rather than risk a longer sentence than what he was originally put away for, Youssef took a deal for a one-year term.

On November 7th – the day after President Obama was re-elected – U.S. District Court Judge Christina Snyder, a Bill Clinton nominee, sentenced Youssef to one year in prison where he remains today.  Youssef was brought into court in shackles to hear his sentence. Only one pool reporter – from the Associated Press, which ironically now finds itself a target of the Obama administration’s anti-First Amendment fervor – was allowed in court.

Youssef’s attorney delivered this prescient statement of Youssef’s to the media on the courthouse steps: “The one thing he wanted me to tell all of you is President Obama may have gotten Osama bin Laden, but he didn’t kill the ideology.”

We can stipulate that Mark Basseley Youssef produced an “awful Internet video” as Hillary Clinton put it. And we can also stipulate that he committed probation violations, used aliases and misled his actors. However, when the only person in prison in the aftermath of the Benghazi attack is someone who produced a controversial film in the exercise of his First Amendment rights and not the jihadist murderers, something is very wrong in America under the Obama administration.

As Michael W. McConnell, a former judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit who now directs the Stanford Constitutional Law Center stated, “It sends exactly the wrong message abroad, because when people are becoming violent to try to pressure the U.S. to violate someone’s constitutional rights, we ought to be going out of our way to make it clear that we will not accede to that kind of pressure.”

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

Advertisements

Secretary of State Huma Abedin?

By

full_1308239855humahillaryIn 2017, Huma Abedin may be the wife of the mayor of New York City or the National Security Adviser to the President of the United States. It’s even possible that she might be both.

Huma Abedin’s husband, Anthony Weiner, was once the front-runner for the top job. Weiner’s career was temporarily torpedoed by a sex scandal, but a weak campaign field has tempted him back into the race and already positioned him at the number two spot.

Weiner’s competition is a lesbian City Council speaker, who is seen as a Bloomberg toady, a Comptroller who may soon be headed to jail for campaign finance fraud and a radical leftist Public Advocate who quotes Che and whose wife once claimed to be a lesbian.

In that company, Weiner no longer looks as freakish as he once did and with a $4.3 million war chest, he could win by drowning his Democratic opponents in cash and then fundraising all over again during the general election when he becomes the only alternative to a Republican mayor.

Bloomberg proved that even an unpopular candidate despised by most voters could win elections by flooding community and interest groups with cash and Weiner’s biggest asset isn’t even his war chest; it’s his connection to the Clintons. Weiner’s connection to a Clinton White House means more money for the city and that is something that his party and most community groups are eager to get a taste of.

The woman at the heart of that connection is his wife. Media reports say that Huma Abedin is the one to decide whether Weiner runs and the existence of the New York Times Magazine image rehab profile makes it clear that she has already decided. But no one really believed that Huma Abedin would have stayed married to a formerly promising politician who would never again run for public office.

The only thing standing between Huma Abedin and Gracie Mansion is Joe Lhota, a balding Giuliani official and Weiner’s likely Republican opponent, whose biggest asset is the Giuliani brand.  Lhota is pitching himself as a libertarian alternative to the Bloombergian nanny state, but the chances are still good that the Clinton machine will roll over him on Election Day.

For most politicians, Gracie Mansion is the last stop of their political careers. Ed Koch, the last mayor to try and move to higher office, couldn’t make it. Lindsay took a shot at the White House in 1972 and Weiner likely has dreams of following in his footsteps. It’s an unlikely project, but if Weiner climbs into the top spot in the city, it will only be as a stepping stone to higher office.

By then Huma Abedin is likely to have an even bigger place in the political sun. Bill Clinton traded his support in the last election for the coronation of his wife. Hillary Clinton does have a likability problem, despite the media’s best efforts to pretend otherwise, and she lost the last time she was the inevitable candidate for the Democratic Party nomination. But 2016 could be her year.

The prospective Democratic presidential candidates for 2016 include such charismatic figures as Joe Biden, Maryland Governor Martin “Rain Tax” O’Malley and New York’s Machiavellian governor Andrew Cuomo. It’s the kind of race that even Hillary might be able to win. And then it’s up to the Republican Party to put up a candidate who can communicate better than any of its candidates have in the last generation.

President Hillary Clinton is almost certain to take along Huma Abedin. The two women were virtually inseparable and politicians like to keep their close confidants and aides by their side. Huma Abedin served as the Deputy Chief of Staff for Hillary Clinton during her Secretary of State days. Jake Sullivan, the last man to hold it before the Kerry era, moved on to become the State Department’s director of policy planning and then became the national security advisor to Joe Biden.

Moving Huma Abedin over into a job like the director of policy planning would allow her to reshape the State Department’s foreign policy worldview. And from there it would not be impossible to move her up to National Security Advisor or even Secretary of State.

Both of those positions might be a little too high profile for Abedin who works best in the shade. A 2007 Observer profile of her struggled to dig up any information on her official role, and whether with Clinton or Weiner, she has stuck to the background part.

The controversy that flared up over her background shows why she avoids the spotlight. With close family members, including her parents, involved in the Muslim Brotherhood and her own work at their Institute for Muslim Minority Affairs, which was set up by the Saudis and Muslim Brotherhood to build a fifth column of Islamization within the United States; Huma Abedin has every reason to be the woman behind the man or the woman behind the woman.

The Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs, founded by Abdullah Omar Naseef, a Muslim Brotherhood player who has been accused of funding Al Qaeda front groups, is not an ideal mention on any resume. And yet few Republicans have been willing to challenge Huma Abedin when she was serving as the Deputy Chief of Staff for the Secretary of State. Would they be willing to challenge an emboldened Secretary of State Huma Abedin?

Obama has set a precedent that background checks are passé. So who’s going to do one on Huma Abedin?

By 2014, Huma Abedin may be married to the mayor of the biggest city in the country. By 2018, she may be the National Security Advisor.

It would be a rapid ascension, but the process of moving agents of influence up the ladder has shredded the normal seasoning process that would usually required for the top spots. The Center for American Progress’ Denis McDonough went from being an aide to an advisor to the Deputy National Security Advisor to the Chief of Staff in a handful of years. It would not be too hard to imagine Abedin making the same rush up the ladder while the media gushes at her ambition and her posh designer handbags.

In an age of terror and appeasement, Huma Abedin’s Muslim background is her best credential. The close collaboration between the Obama and Clinton foreign policy infrastructure and the Muslim Brotherhood makes her own Muslim Brotherhood background another plus.

What seems like treason to most ordinary Americans is ideologically convenient to a political and diplomatic clique that believes empowering “moderate” Islamists is our best defense against Al Qaeda. Placing Huma Abedin in a position where she can shape American foreign policy would be their show of sincerity to the Brotherhood.

None of this is inevitable. Another Twitter scandal could sink Weiner’s comeback and a more likable Democrat could pull together enough support and media adoration to challenge Hillary Clinton. And the work of researchers and investigators could still sink Huma Abedin the way it sank Susan Rice.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

Digging the Benghazi Memory Hole

Digging the Benghazi Memory Hole

By Jack Cashill

With Wednesday’s hearing, Hillary Clinton played her uniquely dramatic role in the one shovel-ready project in Obama’s America — the Benghazi memory hole. She spent the day burying the whole sordid Benghazi mess. Don’t expect the media to exhume it. They have already started chastising those who try.

The reader may think it impossible for Ms. Clinton to forget an incident in which she embraced “the mothers and fathers, sisters and brothers, sons and daughters” of the Benghazi dead, not to mention “the wives left alone to raise their children.” Indeed, the very memory of this moment caused her to tear up during the hearing.

But this was not her first memory hole, nor even her biggest. On the night of July 17, 1996, she stayed up well past her bedtime to start digging the mother of all memory holes. As her official schedule attests, she and President Clinton attended a gala for the Women’s Leadership Forum of the DNC at the Sheraton Washington Hotel that evening. At 8:35 p.m. she and Bill left the Sheraton by presidential motorcade and headed back to the White House.

At 8:31 p.m., however, a few hundred miles away, two FAA veterans at the New York Air Route Traffic Control Center observed a target arching and intersecting with TWA Flight 800 as it headed east off Long Island’s south shore.

By 9 p.m., Clinton’s anti-terror czar, Richard Clarke, was driving in to the White House to convene an emergency meeting of his security group to address the disaster.

“I dreaded what I thought was about to happen,” Clarke wrote in his memoir, Against All Enemies, “The Eisenhower option.” Had Iran been behind the downing of TWA Flight 800, the president would have had to respond. Nearly three weeks later, Clinton was telling historian Taylor Branch that Iran was almost assuredly behind this seeming missile attack. “They want war,” Branch recorded Clinton as saying.

This had to have been a harrowing time for Hillary. She was holed up that first night in the family quarters with Bill and White House fixer Sandy Berger. A week later, she flew with Bill to Long Island to console the families of the 230 victims. Clarke went with them. He talked about the Clintons “praying with [the families], hugging them, taking pictures with them” and then seeing “Mrs. Clinton” alone in a makeshift chapel, praying “on her knees.”

Eight years later, Hillary wrote about this turbulent time in her 500-plus-page memoir, Living History. To this extraordinary incident, one that Clarke called “The Almost War, 1996,” she dedicated exactly one-third of a sentence. That’s it. Not to be outdone, in his 900-plus-page memoir, My Life, Bill Clinton dedicated just one paragraph. He wrote more words about a June 1996 day in Albuquerque where he discussed that community’s curfew program than he did about that July night a month later when 230 people were killed and the nation almost went to war.

The Clintons could safely stuff this tragedy down the memory hole because they were confident their accomplices would do the same. In his memoir, My FBI: Bringing Down The Mafia, Investigating Bill Clinton, and Fighting the War on Terror, former FBI director Louis Freeh gave the tragedy two sentences: “Three weeks later. On July 17, TWA flight 800 exploded off Long Island minutes after taking off from John F. Kennedy International Airport. No one knew what brought it down: mechanical failure, a bomb, a ground-to-air missile all seemed possible in the early stages.” That’s it. Despite the fact that this highly controversial investigation involved hundreds of FBI agents full time for months and some agents for years, Freeh could only spare it a tweet.

In July 1996, former CIA Director George Tenet served as Deputy Director of Central Intelligence. In his memoir, At the Center of the Storm, he wrote about a 1995 National Intelligence Estimate, which highlighted civil aviation as a target for radical Islamists, and a 1997 one that made the same point even more forcefully. Yet so powerful was the gravitational field of the TWA 800 memory hole that not even a single proton of information about the doomed flight escaped it into Tenet’s book — not a word.

In his memoir, Off With Their Heads, presidential advisor Dick Morris referred to TWA 800 as one of “three attacks” in the “terror summer of 1996.” “Americans demanded action,” Morris wrote of the three attacks. “But all they got were speeches.” About two of the attacks, Khobar Towers and the Olympic Park bombing, Morris has been forthcoming. About TWA Flight 800 he has been silent beyond its mere mention. A few years back, Morris and I were both on Paul Schiffer’s Cleveland-area radio show at the same time. Three times I asked him to elaborate on the TWA Flight 800 crash. Three times he absolutely evaded the question.

On Sept. 11 2001, George Stephanopoulos, former assistant to President Clinton, talked with Peter Jennings on ABC TV about how the president would use the White House “situation room” to communicate with key staff in the wake of an attack. Said Stephanopoulos: “In my time at the White House [the situation room] was used in the aftermath of the Oklahoma City bombing, in the aftermath of the TWA Flight 800 bombing, and that would be the way they would stay in contact through the afternoon.” In his memoir All too Human, Stephanopoulos did not mention a single word about TWA Flight 800, let alone what he knew about the “bombing” of the same.

Once upon a time, we could rely on the media to tell us what the political insiders wouldn’t. Remember Watergate? Today, the insiders are the media. Don’t hold your breath about Benghazi.