fbpx
38 people cited for violations in Clinton email probe

38 people cited for violations in Clinton email probe

WASHINGTON (AP) — The State Department has completed its internal investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s use of private email and found violations by 38 people, some of whom may face disciplinary action.

The investigation, launched more than three years ago, determined that those 38 people were “culpable” in 91 cases of sending classified information that ended up in Clinton’s personal email, according to a letter sent to Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley this week and released on Friday. The 38 are current and former State Department officials but were not identified.

Although the report identified violations, it said investigators had found “no persuasive evidence of systemic, deliberate mishandling of classified information.” However, it also made clear that Clinton’s use of the private email had increased the vulnerability of classified information.

The Associated Press sent an email seeking comment to a Clinton representative.

The investigation covered 33,000 emails that Clinton turned over for review after her use of the private email account became public. The department said it found a total of 588 violations involving information then or now deemed to be classified but could not assign fault in 497 cases.

For current and former officials, culpability means the violations will be noted in their files and will be considered when they apply for or go to renew security clearances. For current officials, there could also be some kind of disciplinary action. But it was not immediately clear what that would be.

The report concluded “that the use of a private email system to conduct official business added an increased degree of risk of compromise as a private system lacks the network monitoring and intrusion detection capabilities of State Department networks.”

The department began the review in 2016 after declaring 22 emails from Clinton’s private server to be “top secret.” Clinton was then running for president against Donald Trump, and Trump made the server a major focus of his campaign.

Then-FBI Director James Comey held a news conference that year in which he criticized Clinton as “extremely careless” in her use of the private email server as secretary of state but said the FBI would not recommend charges.

The Justice Department’s inspector general said FBI specialists did not find evidence that the server had been hacked, with one forensics agent saying he felt “fairly confident that there wasn’t an intrusion.”

Grassley started investigating Clinton’s email server in 2017, when he was chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. The Iowa Republican has been critical of Clinton’s handling of classified information and urged administrative sanctions.

Source: 38 people cited for violations in Clinton email probe

Trump campaign to sue CNN over pro-impeachment bias, demands ‘substantial payment’

Trump campaign to sue CNN over pro-impeachment bias, demands ‘substantial payment’

Outraged by secretly taped anti-Trump comments attributed to CNN President Jeff Zucker and others at the cable network, President Trump’s campaign is vowing to sue the company for “a substantial payment of damages.”

 

Outraged by secretly taped anti-Trump comments attributed to CNN President Jeff Zucker and others at the cable network, President Trump’s campaign is vowing to sue the company for “a substantial payment of damages.”

In a four-page letter to CNN, Zucker, and Executive Vice President David Vigilante, Trump attorney Charles J. Harder cited years of anti-Trump bias at the network and claimed the cable giant has broken its promise of “excellence in journalism.”

Listing several examples from the just-released Project Veritas videotapes of CNN insiders describing Zucker’s demand for “impeachment above all else,” Harder wrote that they “are merely the tip of the iceberg of the evidence my clients have accumulated over recent years.”

He added, “Never in the history of this country has a President been the subject of such a sustained barrage of unfair, unfounded, unethical and unlawful attacks by so-called ‘mainstream’ news, as the current situation.”

Harder represents both Trump and the campaign. The letter was provided exclusively to Secrets and is shown in full below.

While media is typically protected by the First Amendment, Harder said the bias he cited at CNN was a violation of the Lanham Act “by constituting misrepresentations to the public, to your advertisers, and to others” to distribute “truly fair and balanced” news.

“Accordingly, my clients intend to file legal action against you, to seek compensatory damages, treble damages, punitive damages, injunctive relief, reimbursement of legal costs, and all other available legal and equitable remedies, to the maximum extent permitted by law,” said the letter.

What’s more, he suggested that even if the campaign and CNN come to an agreement, he would seek money as part of that deal.

“Please contact the undersigned to discuss an appropriate resolution of this matter, which would include a substantial payment of damages, as well as all other appropriate measures that are necessary to fully address the magnitude of the situation,” wrote Harder in the letter sent by overnight mail and email on Wednesday.

Trump has long been at war with CNN and other media he dubs “fake news.” CNN’s White House reporter, Jim Acosta, and Trump have tussled publicly, and Acosta wrote a book sharply critical of the president titled The Enemy of the People.

In three new, secretly taped videos, Project Veritas said they show CNN insiders detailing Zucker’s anti-Trump views.

Those comments, wrote Harder, show that CNN is violating journalism ethics.

“Recently released video footage of individuals alleged to be your employees indicates that your reporting relating to President Trump is contrary to your own mission and the aforementioned Code of Ethics. Your own employees appear to state that CNN is focused on trying to ‘take down President Trump,’ driven by a ‘personal vendetta’ that Mr. Zucker purportedly has against him, rather than reporting the news in an objective manner,” wrote Harder.

See entire article here: Trump campaign to sue CNN over pro-impeachment bias, demands ‘substantial payment’

Rep. McCaul on Dems’ impeachment ‘fishing expedition’: Adam Schiff’s secret process ‘defies democracy’

Rep. McCaul on Dems’ impeachment ‘fishing expedition’: Adam Schiff’s secret process ‘defies democracy’

The top Republican on the House Foreign Affairs Committee told “America’s Newsroom” that there was “no evidence of a quid pro quo” regarding President Trump’s phone call with Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelensky on July 25.

The top Republican on the House Foreign Affairs Committee told “America’s Newsroom” that there was “no evidence of a quid pro quo” in President Trump’s phone call with Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelensky on July 25.

“I think it’s a bit of a fishing expedition at this point in time,” said Rep. Michael McCaul, of Texas, on the Democrats’ push toward impeachment.

He faulted House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, a California Democrats, for conducting the investigation “in the most secret room in the Capitol.”

“At least have a vote on the House floor to move forward with this. It defies democracy. … All Adam Schiff is doing right now is building a secret record in his SCIF in a one-sided process to move forward toward impeachment.”

McCaul, a former federal prosecutor in the Department of Justice’s Public Integrity Section, said Trump’s phone call was reviewed by those officials, who purportedly found no criminal violations.

On Thursday, McCaul appeared on Fox News and said that the common theme from U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland’s closed-door interview was the absence of evidence of a quid pro quo.

McCaul told “The Story” he is limited in what he can say publicly due to a “gag rule” implemented by Schiff.

However, McCaul said Sondland’s testimony backed up President Trump’s phone call transcript.

“In his opening statement, he does refer to [former New York Mayor Rudy] Giuliani operating…sometimes in conjunction with the State Department, sometimes not,” he said. “I think what is a common theme with the testimony that’s been made public is there’s no quid pro quo here — and I think that’s very clear from the president’s phone conversation.”

Sources with firsthand knowledge of former U.S. envoy to Ukraine Kurt Volker’s testimony to House investigators earlier this month told Fox News that Volker said he consulted with Sondland and Giuliani in August regarding a draft statement from Ukraine on corruption.

Source: Rep. McCaul on Dems’ impeachment ‘fishing expedition’: Adam Schiff’s secret process ‘defies democracy’

Hillary Clinton says Tulsi Gabbard is a ‘Russian asset’ groomed to ensure Trump reelection

Hillary Clinton says Tulsi Gabbard is a ‘Russian asset’ groomed to ensure Trump reelection

Hillary Clinton said that Rep. Tulsi Gabbard is being groomed by Moscow to run as a third-party spoiler candidate in 2020 to help President Trump win reelection.

Hillary Clinton said that Rep. Tulsi Gabbard is being groomed by Moscow to run as a third-party spoiler candidate in 2020 to help President Trump win reelection.

The former secretary of state pushed the theory on the Campaign HQ podcast hosted by David Plouffe, President Barack Obama’s campaign manager in 2008.

Plouffe and Clinton discussed hurdles the Democratic nominee would face and compared the 2020 race to Clinton’s loss to Trump in 2016. Plouffe asked Clinton about the part third-party candidates, such as Jill Stein of the Green Party, played in 2016, allowing Trump to secure key states.

“They are also going to do third party again,” Clinton said. “I’m not making any predictions, but I think they’ve got their eye on somebody who is currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third-party candidate,” Clinton said, referring to Gabbard, without mentioning the Hawaii representative by name.

“She is a favorite of the Russians. They have a bunch of sites and bots and other ways of supporting her so far. That’s assuming Jill Stein will give it up, which she might not because she is also a Russian asset.

“They know they can’t win without a third-party candidate, and so I do not know who it’s going to be, but I can guarantee you they will have a vigorous third-party challenge in the key states that they most need it.”

In Tuesday’s Democratic debate, Gabbard accused the New York Times of calling her a “Russian asset.”

The newspaper published an Oct. 12 news article about Gabbard stating, “She is injecting a bit of chaos into her own party’s primary race, threatening to boycott that debate to protest what she sees as a ‘rigging’ of the 2020 election. That’s left some Democrats wondering what, exactly, she is up to in the race, while others worry about supportive signs from online bot activity and the Russian news media.”

Gabbard said on the debate stage, “The New York Times and CNN have also smeared veterans like myself for calling for an end to this regime change war [in Syria]. Just two days ago, the New York Times put out an article saying that I’m a Russian asset and an Assad apologist, and all these different smears.”

In 2016, Gabbard congratulated Clinton on becoming the Democratic presidential nominee, saying: “She becomes the first woman to lead a major political party into the general election. Say what you will about her, let’s give credit where it due. This is one tough, smart woman. Most might wilt under the fire and criticism she’s endured.”

Source: Hillary Clinton says Tulsi Gabbard is a ‘Russian asset’ groomed to ensure Trump reelection

California’s New ‘Red Flag’ Gun Laws Deemed ‘Threat to Civil Liberties’ by ACLU

California’s New ‘Red Flag’ Gun Laws Deemed ‘Threat to Civil Liberties’ by ACLU

Raft of extreme gun laws passed in CA

California adopted 15 firearms-related bills last Friday, including a controversial ‘red flag’ gun confiscation law which adds co-workers, employers and educators to the list of who can file a gun violence restraining order on those they say are a danger to themselves and others.

Currently, only law enforcement and immediate family members can apply to temporarily confiscate peoples’ firearms. Most of the new laws take effect January 1, according to the LA Times.

Signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) after being vetoed twice by his Democratic predecessor Jerry Brown (who said that educators can work through family members or law enforcement if a restraining order is required), the gun confiscation bill is so broad that the ACLU said it “poses a significant threat to civil liberties” since guns can be seized from owners before they have an opportunity to contest the requests, and those making the requests may “lack the relationship or skills required to make an appropriate assessment,” NBC San Diego reports.

Alex Jones exposes the corrupt entertainment industry bending over to accommodate China’s censorship control grid expansion across the globe.

All that’s needed for a co-worker or educator to file a complaint is to have had “substantial and regular interactions” with gun owners, along with permission from their employers or school administrators.

Those seeking the orders will be required to file a sworn statement outlining their concerns.

The author of the bill, Democratic Assemblyman Phil Ting of San Francisco, said that, “With school and workplace shootings on the rise, it’s common sense to give the people we see every day the power to intervene and prevent tragedies,” citing a recent study which found that 21 mass shootings may have been prevented by a gun restraining order.

Meanwhile, a companion bill signed by Newsom and written by Democratic Assemblywoman Jacqui Irwin of Thousand Oaks allows gun violence restraining orders to last one and five years, though gun owners would be allowed to petition the state to get their guns back earlier.

In another Ting-authored companion bill, gun owners who agree to voluntarily surrender their firearms can notify the court via a form, vs. a hearing which Ting says wastes time and resources.

The National Rifle Association (NRA)’s Amy Hunter, meanwhile, said of another bill signed on Friday (SB 61) which prohibits Californians from buying more than one semiautomatic rifle per month, and bans the sale of such rifles to those younger than 21: “This bill places burdens on law-abiding residents,” adding “It will not make anyone safer.”

Republican state legislators criticized the one-gun-a-month bill, as well as the state’s failure to remove guns from the thousands of felons and the severely mentally ill as they are already empowered to do so.

“Instead we continue to do more and more legislation that interferes with the law-abiding citizen’s right to own and possess firearms, which is their constitutional right to do,” said Yuba City Republican Assemblyman James Gallagher (LA Times).

Read entire article here: California’s New ‘Red Flag’ Gun Laws Deemed ‘Threat to Civil Liberties’ by ACLU

0