IT SEEMS H.CLINTON HAS SOMETHING TO HIDE ABOUT THE BENGHAZIGATE:Hillary Clinton wiped email server clean, refuses to turn it over


IT SEEMS H.CLINTON HAS SOMETHING TO HIDE ABOUT THE BENGHAZIGATE:Hillary Clinton wiped email server clean, refuses to turn it over

Isn’t this grand? Mrs. Clinton is above the law! She is even above the President… she is the Queen of Murder Inc. we know for a fact that anyone who has something to say against Hillary ends up dead…we are still counting the bodies from her early age but the last people to see her might and above the law is the LATE AMBASSADOR STEVENS AND THREE MORE AMERICANS WHO DIED WHILE PROTECTING THEIR AMBASSADOR. Not that I shed any tears for the Ambassador as he was a well-trained CIA and due to him and his cronies like Clinton/Obama/Breenan have LIBYAN BLOOD ON THEIR HANDS. The other 3 people who tried to save Stevens lost their lives in vain and now you have Clinton throwing a tantrum like a spoiled little child and refusing to hand over her email server to the Benghazi committee again I say isn’t that grand?

Below I will post you the article from Washington Times so you can vote Clinton for your new president in 2016 who by the way is funded by all the TERRORIST FRACTIONS OF AL QAEDA, ISIS/DAESH who are under the Saudis and Qatari’s…

If you vote for her it will be the END OF AMERICA she will put the last nail on the coffin finishing off what Obama has left for her….

Hillary Clinton who is a SAINT trying her best to secure the Americans from Terrorist........ what an  irony....

Hillary Clinton who is a SAINT trying her best to secure the Americans from Terrorist…….. what an irony….

– The Washington Times – Friday, March 27, 2015

Former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has refused to turn her email server over to an independent third party and claims she has wiped the server clean, dealing a setback to the special investigative committee looking into the 2012 Benghazi terrorist attack, the probe said late Friday.

Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy said the whole House will have to decide what the next steps are in the push to pry information from Mrs. Clinton, but said she will likely have to appear and testify on her decision-making about her emails, setting up another dramatic showdown between the former first lady and her congressional critics.

“Not only was the secretary the sole arbiter of what was a public record, she also summarily decided to delete all emails from her server ensuring no one could check behind her analysis in the public interest,” Mr. Gowdy said in a statement excoriating Mrs. Clinton’s actions.

Mr. Gowdy said Mrs. Clinton’s response to his subpoena was to re-transmit several hundred pages of emails that the State Department has already turned over.

Rep. Elijah E. Cummings, the top Democrat on the Benghazi probe, said that proves Mrs. Clinton has already produced all of her official records concerning the terrorist attack.

“It is time for the committee to stop this political charade and instead make these documents public and schedule Secretary Clinton’s public testimony now,” he said.

Mrs. Clinton said at a press conference earlier this month that she culled through more than 60,000 emails from her time as secretary and decided about 30,000 of them were public records that should have been maintained. She said the rest were private messages relating to her daughter’s wedding or her yoga class schedule, and she didn’t keep those.

But Mr. Gowdy said Mrs. Clinton’s lawyers informed him Friday that she “unilaterally decided to wipe her server clean and permanently delete all emails” from it.

He said it wasn’t clear when Mrs. Clinton made the final decision, but he said it appeared to have happened after the State Department asked her to turn over her government business messages in late October.

Mrs. Clinton rejected use of a government-issued email account during her four years as secretary, first relying on an account she used while a senator and then later setting up an email server at her home in New York and using an account on that to conduct all of her business, both public and private.

She insists she followed the law, which at the time didn’t require officials to use government-issued accounts but did require them to turn over all official records to be stored. Mrs. Clinton didn’t turn over those records until last December, after the Benghazi probe noticed she had used a private email and requested those records from the State Department, which then asked Mrs. Clinton for them. The law doesn’t set a date for turning over records.

Open-records experts, however, question Mrs. Clinton’s designation of her server as private, saying it was set up in order to do government business, and so it and the emails on it arguably belong to the government.

Mrs. Clinton’s email practices have put the Obama administration in a difficult position. Obama lawyers have admitted in federal court that for years, they were not correctly performing open-records searches because they didn’t have her emails, but they say they are unilaterally going back and doing those searches now.

Investigative reports: The CIA drug runners’ bomb? Lockerbie Inside Story Former Iraq/Libya agent Susan Lindauer


Originally posted on the real SyrianFreePress Network:

west-want-gaddafi-dead

~

~

Investigative reports: Author of ‘Extreme Prejudice’ Susan Lindauer on the CIA & UK TV lies about Libya and Lockerbie – Interview with Susan Lindauer, former CIA officer and author of ‘Extreme Prejudice’.
The Lockerbie crash was not instigated by Libyans but by rogue CIA officers, to kill off DIA & CIA officers on plane returning to Washington who that knew that rogue officers had ‘gone rogue’ and were taking large amounts of money from drugs for their own purposes.

  • Black Budget money;
  • Islamic terrorists and hostages;
  • CIA dealing drugs to pay for Black Ops;
  • shadow government;
  • Oliver North;
  • Iran Contra;
  • Ahmed Jibril, Abu Nidal and Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (General Command);
  • how Libya used to be;
  • film ‘Kill the Messenger';
  • book ‘Dark Alliance’ by Gary Webb.

As a U.S. Intelligence Asset, Susan Lindauer covered anti-terrorism at the Iraqi Embassy in New York from 1996 up…

View original 222 more words

THE JOKE OF THE YEAR: Press Laughs After U.S. Spokeswoman Claims We Do Not Support Coups


THE JOKE OF THE YEAR: Press Laughs After U.S. Spokeswoman Claims We Do Not Support Coups

So as you can see the United States is famous for backing coups or changing sovereign governments when ever it suits their purposes….. by denying it, it only makes you laugh so hard that tears come to your face, with their audacity that reporters and anonymous readers would believe such a blatant lie. Here is a small preview of the above table which I got it from this article and I suggest you read the whole article maybe some people will wake up from their lethargic sleep and do something

COMMON THEMES

Some common themes can be seen in many of these U.S. military interventions.

First, they were explained to the U.S. public as defending the lives and rights of civilian populations. Yet the military tactics employed often left behind massive civilian “collateral damage.” War planners made little distinction between rebels and the civilians who lived in rebel zones of control, or between military assets and civilian infrastructure, such as train lines, water plants, agricultural factories, medicine supplies, etc. The U.S. public always believe that in the next war, new military technologies will avoid civilian casualties on the other side. Yet when the inevitable civilian deaths occur, they are always explained away as “accidental” or “unavoidable.”

Second, although nearly all the post-World War II interventions were carried out in the name of “freedom” and “democracy,” nearly all of them in fact defended dictatorships controlled by pro-U.S. elites. Whether in Vietnam, Central America, or the Persian Gulf, the U.S. was not defending “freedom” but an ideological agenda (such as defending capitalism) or an economic agenda (such as protecting oil company investments). In the few cases when U.S. military forces toppled a dictatorship–such as in Grenada or Panama–they did so in a way that prevented the country’s people from overthrowing their own dictator first, and installing a new democratic government more to their liking.

Third, the U.S. always attacked violence by its opponents as “terrorism,” “atrocities against civilians,” or “ethnic cleansing,” but minimized or defended the same actions by the U.S. or its allies. If a country has the right to “end” a state that trains or harbors terrorists, would Cuba or Nicaragua have had the right to launch defensive bombing raids on U.S. targets to take out exile terrorists? Washington’s double standard maintains that an U.S. ally’s action by definition “defensive,” but that an enemy’s retaliation is by definition “offensive.”

Fourth, the U.S. often portrays itself as a neutral peacekeeper, with nothing but the purest humanitarian motives. After deploying forces in a country, however, it quickly divides the country or region into “friends” and “foes,” and takes one side against another. This strategy tends to enflame rather than dampen a war or civil conflict, as shown in the cases of Somalia and Bosnia, and deepens resentment of the U.S. role.

Fifth, U.S. military intervention is often counterproductive even if one accepts U.S. goals and rationales. Rather than solving the root political or economic roots of the conflict, it tends to polarize factions and further destabilize the country. The same countries tend to reappear again and again on the list of 20th century interventions.

Sixth, U.S. demonization of an enemy leader, or military action against him, tends to strengthen rather than weaken his hold on power. Take the list of current regimes most singled out for U.S. attack, and put it alongside of the list of regimes that have had the longest hold on power, and you will find they have the same names. Qaddafi, Castro, Saddam, Kim, and others may have faced greater internal criticism if they could not portray themselves as Davids standing up to the American Goliath, and (accurately) blaming many of their countries’ internal problems on U.S. economic sanctions.

One of the most dangerous ideas of the 20th century was that “people like us” could not commit atrocities against civilians.

  • German and Japanese citizens believed it, but their militaries slaughtered millions of people.

  • British and French citizens believed it, but their militaries fought brutal colonial wars in Africa and Asia.

  • Russian citizens believed it, but their armies murdered civilians in Afghanistan, Chechnya, and elsewhere.

  • Israeli citizens believed it, but their army mowed down Palestinians and Lebanese.

  • Arabs believed it, but suicide bombers and hijackers targeted U.S. and Israeli civilians.

  • U.S. citizens believed it, but their military killed hundreds of thousands in Vietnam, Iraq, and elsewhere.

Every country, every ethnicity, every religion, contains within it the capability for extreme violence. Every group contains a faction that is intolerant of other groups, and actively seeks to exclude or even kill them. War fever tends to encourage the intolerant faction, but the faction only succeeds in its goals if the rest of the group acquiesces or remains silent. The attacks of September 11 were not only a test for U.S. citizens attitudes’ toward minority ethnic/racial groups in their own country, but a test for our relationship with the rest of the world. We must begin not by lashing out at civilians in Muslim countries, but by taking responsibility for our own history and our own actions, and how they have fed the cycle of violence.

and here is the rest of the article with the joke that America is not involved in any coups:

Venezuelan President Nicholas Maduro has publicly accused the United States of trying to foment a coup in Venezuela. The accusations come as the Obama Administration has bizarrely labeled Venezuela a national security threat to the United States despite that obviously not being true.Maduro’s accusation stems not just from being labeled a national security threat but from a plot Venezuelan security services uncovered which was publicly detailed by Maduro on Venezuelan TV.

According to Maduro the plot involved Carlos Manuel Osuna Saraco who operates out of New York and Miami, allegedly with the help of the US government. There is audio of Osuna dictating a statement rebel leaders should read after the coup.

If the plot is true it will be the second attempt by the US to foment a coup in Venezuela this century. The first being an amazingly blatant attempt in 2002 against President Hugo Chavez which the White House itself publicly supported before the coup was reversed and Chavez was returned to power.

Which brings us to the laughing stock State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki became yesterday when she claimed [VIDEO] in response to Maduro’s accusations:

As a matter of long standing policy the United States does not support transitions by non-constitutional means. Political transitions must be democratic, constitutional, peaceful, and legal.

We’ve seen many times that the Venezuelan government tries to distract from its own actions by blaming the United States or other members of the international community for events inside Venezuela. These efforts reflect a lack of seriousness on the part of the Venezuelan government to deal with the grave situation it faces.

The Associated Press reporter, Matt Lee, immediately jumped in with quite reasonable incredulity saying “I’m sorry. Whoah, whoah, whoah. The US has a long-standing practice of not promoting [coups] – how long-standing would you say?” Lee continued audibly scoffing and laughing “In particular in South and Latin America that is not a long-standing policy.”

Untold History of the United States: Bush, Obama and the age of terror


Untold History of the United States: Bush, Obama and the age of terror

Bush, Obama and the Age of Terror is the concluding episode of Oliver Stone’s brilliant 10-part documentary: The Untold History of the United States.

Benghazi committee officially requests Clinton surrender her email server


Benghazi committee officially requests Clinton surrender her email server

Hillary Clinton who is a SAINT trying her best to secure the Americans from Terrorist........ what an  irony....

Hillary Clinton who is a SAINT trying her best to secure the Americans from Terrorist…….. what an irony….

– The Washington Times

The committee investigating Benghazi formally requested Friday that Hillary Rodham Clinton turn her email server over to an independent third party so it can be scrutinized to determine whether she and the Obama administration complied with open-records laws.

Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy sent a letter to the former secretary of state’s personal lawyer making the request, which he said only comes after “exhaustive efforts” to get a look at her communications during the time of the 2012 terrorist attack on the diplomatic post in Libya’s second-largest city.

“Though Secretary Clinton alone is responsible for causing this issue, she alone does not get to determine its outcome,” the South Carolina Republican said.

Mrs. Clinton earlier this month admitted she refused to use an official government-issued email account and instead conducted government business on a personal account she set up on a server she controlled out of her New York home.

She has asserted she complied with the law by hoping her emails were being cataloged based on whom she was mailing, and by late last year — nearly two years after she left office — turning over about 30,000 emails she retroactively deemed to be government business. She said she did not turn over about 32,000 other messages she deemed private.

Mrs. Clinton has previously rejected turning her email server over to someone else, saying she believes the law gives her final say on what emails should be deemed public.

Mr. Gowdy has said Mrs. Clinton could turn her server over to a retired federal judge, an inspector general or some other third party with a professional reputation for even-handedness.

Mrs. Clinton’s office didn’t respond to a request for comment Friday, but a Democratic member of the Benghazi probe committee said he was “deeply troubled” by Mr. Gowdy’s move.

Rep. Adam Schiff, California Democrat, said Mrs. Clinton has already turned her emails over to the State Department, which has released the Benghazi-related ones to the committee.

“None of them support the various conspiracy theories that have been advanced about the tragic death of four Americans on that terrible day. The secretary has urged the committee to make these public, and the chairman has refused,” Mr. Schiff said.

The congressman called the request to surrender the email server unprecedented and pointed to email troubles the Republican National Committee faced during President George W. Bush’s tenure. Mr. Schiff said Democrats, who controlled Congress at the time and led a probe into the RNC emails, worked with the party organization to make sure the emails were turned over and preserved.

“The GOP members of the Select Committee may think this is good presidential politics, but it is a terrible abuse of a taxpayer-funded committee that was supposed to investigate a tragedy in Benghazi,” Mr. Schiff said.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 6,452 other followers

%d bloggers like this: