Top Clinton Aide Cheryl Mills Wants Video Testimony Kept From Release

Hillary Clinton Testifies Before House Select Committee On Benghazi Attacks

One of Hillary Clinton’s top aides has requested that video of her upcoming deposition on the former secretary of state’s private email server not be released to the public, The Hill reports.

Cheryl Mills’ lawyers filed a motion in federal court Wednesday saying that Mills “supports the release of the written transcript of her deposition to the public. But no additional public interest would be served by the publication of the audiovisual recording.”

The filing argues that the conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch, which filed the Freedom of Information Act request that has led to Mills’ deposition, should not be allowed to release videotape of Mills’ testimony because soundbites could be used by Judicial Watch or other opponents of Clinton to portray Mills’ testimony in an “unfair or misleading manner.”

“Judicial Watch should not be allowed to manipulate Ms. Mills’ testimony, and invade her personal privacy, to advance a partisan agenda that should have nothing to do with this litigation,” the lawyers argue.

Judicial Watch was granted permission to interview Mills and other officials under oath as part of its FOIA lawsuit. Mills’ testimony will be given on May 27.

Judicial Watch has “refused” to say it won’t publicize the video recording, Mills’ filing says.

“That refusal raises a serious concern that Judicial Watch plans to use the recording of Ms. Mills’ deposition, and exploit her image and words, as part of a partisan attack against Secretary Clinton and her presidential campaign,” the lawyers say in the filing. “Judicial Watch’s long-standing antagonism to the Secretary is a matter of public record,” they said, noting the group’s website has a section dedicated “to the numerous attacks that comprise its decades-long anti-Clinton campaign.”

Online Source

Advertisements

OBAMA’S REFUGEES AND SURGING DEADLY DISEASES IN AMERICA

ret

The lethal violation of the nation’s most basic public health protocols.

An outbreak of deadly infectious tuberculosis among refugees President Obama sent to Indiana is a frightening reminder that the administration’s dangerous immigration policies are putting American lives at risk.

In a frenzied rush to bring as many non-English-speaking Third World aliens to the country as possible before his presidency ends in a few months, Obama is allowing Syrian war migrants and refugees to be brought into the country without first undergoing proper medical examinations, a violation of the nation’s most basic public health protocols.

“Tuberculosis is one of the most lethal infectious diseases in history,” said Dr. Jane Orient, executive director of the Association of American Physicians and surgeons. “It is easily transmitted, say on a public bus [and] increasingly, it is becoming highly resistant to all our antibiotics,” she said.

It is clear that Obama doesn’t care about the health and well-being of the American people. That was obvious when he began pushing to create the so-called death panels that Obamacare mandates. But now as a result of the president’s recklessness, fatal diseases are surfacing or making a comeback in the U.S. Among those ailments are pneumonia, paralysis-causing acute flaccid myelitis, dengue fever, swine flu, and enterovirus D68.

Under Obama, immigration policy aims to import new Democratic voters — the less skilled, less educated, less enamored with the norms and values of Western civilization, the better. Lackluster border security, risible efforts at immigration law enforcement, mass amnesties, promises of generous taxpayer-financed welfare benefits, and other goodies, are used by Obama to expand and remake the American electorate.

Prior to the Obama era, tuberculosis was a rare diagnosis and many thought the disease had more or less been eradicated in the United States. Multi-drug-resistant strains of tuberculosis have been reported in populous California, Florida, Texas, and New York, all of which have large concentrations of illegal aliens.

Breitbart News reports that the four individuals in the Hoosier State with active tuberculosis (TB) were sent there by the federal Office of Refugee Resettlement in 2015. The origin countries of the quartet were not publicly available at time of writing but they’re not the only refugees in that state with tuberculosis. Just 77 percent of the 1,885 refugees the feds sent to Indiana last year completed the post-arrival medical screenings that identified the four persons with active TB. No medical data is available for the remaining 420 who were not screened. Of the 1,885 refugees, 80 percent came Myanmar.

Last year close to 400 migrants with latent TB arrived in Indiana, according to state health authorities. Indiana’s TB rate had been falling in the five decades up to 2010, but it is now rising as more migrants move to the state.

While latent TB itself is not infectious, 10 percent of those with latent TB later develop active infectious TB, a particularly nasty ancient disease.

“Tuberculosis (TB) … bacteria usually attack the lungs,” according to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS), “[b]ut TB bacteria can attack any part of the body, such as the kidney, spine, and brain.”

The primer on the malady that used to be called the White Plague continues:

“If not treated properly, TB disease can be fatal. … TB is spread through the air from one person to another. The bacteria are put into the air when a person with active TB disease of the lungs or throat coughs, sneezes, speaks, or sings. People nearby may breathe in these bacteria and become infected. … In the early 1900s, TB disease killed one out of every seven people living in the United States and Europe. …

“[R]acial and ethnic minority populations and foreign-born individuals continue to account for a large number of TB cases in the United States. This is why the initial screening for TB and the appropriate treatment of TB for individuals coming to the United States and living here permanently is an important tool to help eradicate the disease in the United States and worldwide.”

The Obama administration doesn’t even follow its own advice on screening because resettling refugees is more important to the Obama administration than protecting people who are already here in the country.

Dr. Orient blasted the Obama administration for letting refugees in without testing for latent TB.

“Admitting people who might cause an epidemic makes no sense whatsoever from a public health standpoint,” Orient said. “It suggests that those who favor it do not care about the cost in suffering, death, and expense to Americans.”

“If for humanitarian reasons we wish to help people fleeing persecution, there is still no need to release them into the general population of susceptible individuals,” she explained. “Officials who place politics above the health of Americans need to be held accountable and removed from positions of authority.”

And the Zika virus from Latin America, which causes microcephaly, i.e. severe fetal brain defects, has immigrated to the United States under President Obama’s watch. Cases have been found in 11 states and in the District of Columbia.

“People from Central and South America, ground zero for Zika and other infectious diseases including tuberculosis, dengue, Chagas, Chikungunya and schistosomiasis, make up nearly 15 percent of the illegal-immigrant population in the U.S.,” notes Michelle Malkin.

The ongoing invasion at the border with Mexico is exposing Americans to numerous health risks.

“What’s coming over into the U.S. could harm everyone,” said Southern Texas Border Patrol agent Chris Cabrera. “We are starting to see scabies, chicken pox, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections, and different viruses.”

Syrian refugees have brought leishmaniasis, a terrifying parasitic flesh-eating disease prevalent in Syria, to Turkey and Lebanon. In the 18th century a British physician called the illness the “Aleppo boil and Aleppo evil.” U.S. immigration screenings would likely miss the difficult-to-treat disease which spreads to humans through sandflies because its victims can be asymptomatic for a long time.

It is important to bear in mind that contrary to what left-wingers say, it is not nutty or racist to be concerned about foreigners importing diseases; population movement is how diseases spread.

Aliens and even some citizens may unwittingly bring in pathogens for which Americans have not developed immunity. Sometimes these maladies cause death on an epic scale. For example, centuries ago Europeans brought pathogens like the smallpox virus on their bodies to the new world. Indigenous Indian communities were wiped out because they had never encountered it before.

Fortunately, not everyone in Washington, D.C. has been asleep at the wheel on public health issues.

Two public health experts at the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) sounded the alarm last year about the Obama administration’s appalling disregard for the safety of Americans.

In an email exchange between Logistics Management Specialist George Roark and Public Health Advisor William Adams, Roark wrote that “no country in the world would allow” Obama’s massive influx of unwanted foreigners.

Adams answers in the correspondence released under the Freedom of Information Act that “in ten years or less, they’ll all be voting … Commander’s intent … ” Roark characterizes Obama as “the worst pres[ident] we have ever had … he truly is ‘the amateur’ but a Marxist too.”

The year before CDC Intelligence Analyst Daniel Bubacz mockingly referred to Obama’s border policy as a “Leave No Child on the other Side of the Border Policy.”

So far no one in the Obama White House is listening.

Online Source

THE BIGGEST RACIAL LIE – How the Left defames America

obama_1

Editor’s Note: The article below corresponds to the key theme of David Horowitz’s new book, “Progressive Racism,” which is volume 6 of The Black Book of the American Left, a multi-volume collection of David Horowitz’s conservative writings that will, when completed, be the most ambitious effort ever undertaken to define the Left and its agenda. (Order HERE.) We encourage our readers to visitBlackBookOfTheAmericanLeft.com – which features Horowitz’s introductions to Volumes 1-6 of this 10-volume series, along with their tables of contents, reviews and interviews with the author.

Reprinted from Washington Times.

Let’s begin with two statements on race – one that is offensive and false, the other self-evidently true. Taken together they illuminate the toxic state of the national dialogue on race.

The false statement is that America is a racist country or, in its unhinged version: America is a “white supremacist” nation. This accusation is one that so-called progressives regularly make against a country that outlaws racial discrimination, has twice elected a black president, had two black secretaries of state, three black national security advisors and two successive black attorneys general along with thousands of black elected officials, mayors, police chiefs and congressmen. In addition, blacks play dominant roles in shaping America’s popular and sports cultures, and thus in shaping the outlooks and expectations of American youth.

The claim that America is a white supremacist nation is not only deranged and racist against whites, but is an act of hostility towards blacks, who enjoy opportunities and rights as Americans that are greater than those of any other country under the sun, including every African nation and Caribbean country governed by blacks for hundreds and even thousands of years.

The self-evidently true statement about race in America is that America is not a racist country, but in fact the most tolerant and inclusive nation embracing large ethnic minorities on earth. Yet this true statement cannot be uttered in public without inviting charges of “racism” against the speaker. Consequently all public figures and most people generally, clear their throats before speaking about race by genuflecting to the claim that racism against blacks is still a prevalent and systemic problem even though there is no credible evidence to sustain either claim.

By contrast, the offensively false statement that America is a racist nation, is one that our current (black) president has endorsed. According to Obama “racism is still part of our DNA that’s passed on.” Variations of the claim are ubiquitous among self-styled liberals, progressives, so-called civil rights leaders and campus protesters. The title of a recent book by a black university professor summarizes this politically correct slander: Democracy in Black: How Race Still Enslaves the American Soul.” The core claim of the Black Lives Matter movement – which is the chief activist force in advancing this claim, and is “strongly supported” by 46% of Democrats according to a recent Wall Street Journal poll, is that America is a white supremacist nation, whose law enforcement agencies regularly gun down innocent blacks.

Contrary to Obama’s malicious assertion about his own country, the DNA of America – unique among the nations of the world – is not racism but the exact the opposite. In its very beginnings, America dedicated itself to the proposition that all men are created equal and were endowed by their Creator with the right to be free. Over the next two generations, America made good on that proposition, though this achievement is regularly slighted by “progressives” because it didn’t take place overnight.

The historically accurate view of what happened is this: Black Africans were enslaved by other black Africans and sold at slave markets to western slavers. America inherited this slave system from the British Empire, and once it was independent, ended the slave trade and almost all slavery in the northern states within twenty years of its birth. America then risked its survival as a nation and sacrificed 350,000 mostly white Union lives, to end slavery in the south as well. In other words, as far as blacks are concerned, America’s true legacy is not slavery, but freedom. As noted, American blacks today have more freedom, rights and privileges than blacks in any black nation in the world.

These are important facts that have been obscured in our politically correct university culture and throughout the K-12 systems whose teachers are trained in university schools of education. Our literary culture is itself infected with a crude anti-white racism that beggars belief. The National Book Award this year was given to a poisonous racial tract called Between the World and Me, written by Ta-Nahesi Coates in the form of a letter to his son. In the book Coates explains to his son that cops who murder innocent black teens “are merely men enforcing the whims of our country, correctly interpreting its heritage and legacy.” In an all-too typical “history” lesson Coates informs his son:  “We did not choose our fences. They were imposed on us by Virginia planters obsessed with enslaving as many Americans as possible.”

In fact Virginia planters did not enslave blacks originally and could not buy more black slaves once America ended the slave trade in 1807. Coates singles out Virginia planters because some of America’s most prominent Founders, in particular the author of the Declaration of Independence, were Virginians and owned slaves. But Coates and every other black in America and throughout the western hemisphere is free because of Virginia planters like Thomas Jefferson. We need to begin our racial discussions with these facts, and treat the claim that America is a “white supremacist” nation, for what it is: anti-American and anti-white racism.

Online Source

Katie Couric’s New Anti-Gun Documentary Deceptively Edited Interview with Pro-Gun Group

screen_shot_2016-05-25_at_4.36.35_pm

Katie Couric has been caught with her finger on the delete button.

The Yahoo! News anchor’s anti-gun documentary, Under the Gun, is now airing on EPIX. In it, Couric interviews some members of the gun rights group, Virginia Citizens Defense League (VCDL).

At a little over 20 minutes into the movie, Couric asks the group:

“If there are no background checks for gun purchasers, how do you prevent felons or terrorists from purchasing a gun?”

For the next nine seconds, the VCDL members stare at the ground in silence. Here’s the footage:

A great “gotcha” moment, right?

Except now, The Washington Free Beacon has obtained the unedited audio from the actual interview that proves they were anything but silent in answering her query. Listen below as members of the VCDL shower her with answers for four minutes straight:

The evidence is clear: she meant to embarrass these gun enthusiasts and was not afraid to silence their voices to buttress the narrative. And EPIX is standing behind the deception:

Under the Gun is a critically-acclaimed documentary that looks at the polarizing and politicized issue of gun violence, a subject that elicits strong reactions from people on both sides. EPIX stands behind Katie Couric, director Stephanie Soechtig, and their creative and editorial judgment. We encourage people to watch the film and decide for themselves.

VCDL’s president, Philip Van Cleave, defended his members against the outright attack:

“Katie Couric asked a key question during an interview of some members of our organization. She then intentionally removed their answers and spliced in nine seconds of some prior video of our members sitting quietly and not responding. Viewers are left with the misunderstanding that the members had no answer to her question.”

Couric’s motto? Never let truth get in the way of my agenda.

Online Source

EXCLUSIVE: State Dept. Staffers Looking At Benghazi Records ID’d Hillary’s Email Address Much Earlier Than Thought

unnamed

State Department staffers who worked to respond to congressional requests for documents about the Sept. 11, 2012 Benghazi attacks discovered in June 2013 — a year earlier than has previously been reported — that Hillary Clinton used a personal email account.

The revelation, which was included a scathing 83-page State Department inspector general report released on Wednesday, “raises very serious questions” about the Obama administration’s lack of cooperation with the congressional committees that have looked into the Sept. 11, 2012 Benghazi attacks,” said Matt Wolking, the press secretary for the House Select Committee on Benghazi.

“The evidence uncovered by this independent watchdog showing State Department senior officials were well aware in June 2013 of Benghazi-related personal emails but ‘took no action’ raises very serious questions about the administration’s lack of cooperation with Congress,” Wolking told The Daily Caller.

The Committee, which is chaired by South Carolina Rep. Trey Gowdy has engaged in an increasingly bitter battle with Obama’s White House, the State Department and the Defense Department over production of records it says are relevant to its investigation. Many Democrats have accused the Select Committee of unnecessarily prolonging both the Benghazi investigation and of unfairly focusing on her use of a personal email system.

But June 2013 discovery of Clinton’s emails among Benghazi-related records suggests that both probes could have been settled by now.

Prior to Wednesday’s watchdog report, the State Department had identified the summer of 2014 as the period when staffers working on Benghazi document productions had identified Clinton’s personal email address. The discovery of the email address — which was known to many top officials within the State Department during Clinton’s tenure but apparently not to lower-level staffers sifting through Benghazi records — reportedly served as the catalyst for an official State Department request for Clinton’s work-related emails.

That claim, which was first reported by The Washington Post last year, undermined Clinton’s insistence that the State Department requested her emails as part of a widespread effort to obtain work-related emails from all past secretaries of state.

But if the discovery of Clinton’s personal email by State Department staffers looking at Benghazi documents served as the trigger for the request of all of her work emails, the new IG report raises questions about why that initiative wasn’t undertaken the year before.

The watchdog’s report states:
Specifically, in early June 2013, Department staff participating in the review of potential material for production to congressional committees examining the September 2012 Benghazi attack discovered emails sent by the former Policy Planning Director via his Department email account to a personal email address associated with Secretary Clinton.

The policy planning director mentioned in the report is Jake Sullivan. The longtime Clinton aide was one of the most prolific senders of classified information that ended up on Clinton’s server. He is reportedly of keen interest to the FBI, which is investigating whether classified information was mishandled on Clinton’s server.

The IG report released on Wednesday added that the June 2013 discovery prompted a debate within the State Department in the ensuing weeks in which senior Department officials “discussed the Department’s obligations under the Federal Records Act in the context of personal email accounts.”

That debate appears to have done nothing to further the release of Clinton’s emails. She did not hand them over to the State Department until Dec. 2014.

The June 2013 discovery — which was made while staffers were responding to a subpoena request from the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee — is key because it shows that the State Department was aware that emails to and from Clinton likely existed which could have provided valuable insight to Congress about the Benghazi attacks. (RELATED: Hillary Told Daughter That Terrorists Were Behind Benghazi Attack The Night It Happened)

The State Department did not respond to requests for comment for this report.

Online Source

Eight Times Hillary Said Everyone Knew About Her Email Setup

Hillary Clinton has said for months that her use of a private email server was a permitted, well-known fact in the State Department.

However, an audit released Wednesday by the State Department inspector general revealed that Clinton did not seek “guidance or approval to conduct official business via a personal email account on her private server,” even though she was obligated to. If information security officials had been consulted, the report stated, they would not have allowed Clinton to rely on private email for official business considering the “security risks.”

The report also found that the former secretary of state did not comply with the Federal Records Act by not immediately turning over her email records upon leaving the State Department.

Here are eight times Clinton claimed that her use of a private server was well known and allowed.

ONE: Remarks at the United Nations, March 10, 2015

“First, the laws and regulations in effect when I was secretary of state allowed me to use my email for work. That is undisputed. […] I fully complied with every rule I was governed by.”

TWO: CNN interview, July 7, 2015

“Well, let’s start from the beginning. Everything I did was permitted. There was no law. There was no regulation. There was nothing that did not give me the full authority to decide how I was going to communicate. Previous secretaries of state have said they did the same thing. And people across the government knew that I used one device – maybe it was because I am not the most technically capable person and wanted to make it as easy as possible. […] But I want people to understand what the truth is, and the truth is, everything I did was permitted and I went above and beyond what was expected.”

THREE: Associated Press interview, September 7, 2015

“It was fully above board. Everybody in the government with whom I emailed knew that I was using a personal email, and I have said it would have been a better choice to have had two separate email accounts.”

FOUR: CNN Democratic debate, October 13, 2015

“What I did was allowed by the State Department, but it wasn’t the best choice.”

FIVE: CNN Democratic Town Hall, January 26, 2016

“Nothing that I did was wrong. It was not – it was not in any way prohibited.”

SIX: Washington Post-Univision Democratic debate, March 9, 2016

“It wasn’t the best choice. I made a mistake. It was not prohibited. It was not in any way dis­allowed.”

SEVEN: The View, April 5, 2016

“There’s nothing to it. […] There was nothing prohibiting it. It was permitted to use personal email.”

EIGHT: Face the Nation, CBS, May 8, 2016

“Well, as I have said many times, there was — I was absolutely permitted, and I did it. And it turned out to be a mistake. It wasn’t the best choice.”

Clinton’s campaign factsheet on her emails ties these assertions together:

“Her usage was widely known to the over 100 State Department and U.S. government colleagues she emailed, consistent with the practice of prior Secretaries of State and permitted at the time. […] The laws, regulations, and State Department policy in place during her tenure permitted her to use a non-government email for work.”

Source: Eight Times Hillary Said Everyone Knew About Her Email Setup | The Weekly Standard

Judge Napolitano: State Dept Audit Could Be ‘Devastating’ for Hillary

694940094001_4911246762001_ec7227da-1785-443f-8d34-cbc8eedf3545

Judge Andrew Napolitano believes a State Department audit that found Hillary Clinton broke federal records rules while secretary of state could be “devastating” for the Democratic presidential nominee.

Judge Andrew Napolitano explained to Martha MacCallum on “America’s Newsroom” that the audit directly contradicts Clinton’s defense in the FBI’s investigation into her private email server.

“The heart of her defense was that she complied with all State Department regulations and what the FBI has been doing is just a security review,” Judge Napolitano said. “This was the security review … a review of how the State Department keeps safe the secrets entrusted to it. And Mrs. Clinton flunked that review.”

He added that Clinton’s mishandling of sensitive electronic communications is being regarded as more serious than that of past secretaries of state because she diverted 100 percent of all digital traffic coming to her through her home server.

Judge Napolitano said that he doesn’t think the audit will affect the FBI investigation, but it could have major political ramifications for Clinton.

“The political impact could be devastating,” Judge Napolitano said. “[It’s] more continual, cascading bad news for Mrs. Clinton, all of it in the direction of misbehavior while she was secretary of state.”

“Of all the news that’s come out in the past six months on this, none of it has been good news for her.”

Online Source