As the State Department trickle of Clinton emails continues, we are learning more and more about Sec. Clinton. I guess that was the point of her trying to wipe her server, since some of the things we are learning are disconcerting, and some may be downright illegal.
I am not talking about one of the biggest issues – classified emails on an unsecured server. That is bad on a host of levels, and no telling how much risk doing so has caused those who operate across the world.
Rather, I am talking about the attitude evidenced by Sec. Clinton in some of her emails. One in particular stands out. From the Daily Caller:
Hillary Clinton cheered the transfer of convicted murderer Omar Khadr from Guantanamo Bay to a Canadian prison, emails released on Monday show.
“Thank you for all you did to get this resolved,” then-Sec. of State Clinton wrote to State Department legal adviser Harold Koh in a Sept. 29, 2012 email, which was spotted by Vice News’ Jason Leopold, the reporter who filed the lawsuit that forced the State Department to release Clinton’s emails.
Koh had worked with the Canadian government to secure Khadr’s transfer. He had been at the Cuban facility since 2002 when he was detained in Afghanistan during a firefight with American soldiers. Then a 15-year-old child soldier, Khadr was accused of throwing a grenade that killed Sgt. First Class Christopher Speer, a member of a U.S. Army Special Forces Unit. […] (Click here to read the rest.)
Wow. Sec. Clinton was happy that a TERRORIST who killed one of our Special Forces soldiers was essentially given a break.
No doubt that this attitude, along with the manner in which Clinton treated Amb. Stevens while he was alive, and his memory after he was assassinated by terrorists, is why State is having some trouble with diplomats. From The Hill:
The political fallout from the 2012 terrorist attacks on a U.S. compound in Benghazi, Libya, has had a chilling effect on the Foreign Service that has left U.S. diplomats wary of treading into areas with questionable security. […] (Click here to read the rest.)
Gee, you think?!
And this woman wants to be Commander-in-Chief. Isn’t THAT a disconcerting thought?
To go along with that, we have the former top Spy, Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, with this to say about our CURRENT Commander-in-Chief, Barack Obama, when it comes to ISIS. From The Hill:
President Obama ignored early warnings about the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) in 2011 and 2012 because it did not fit his reelection “narrative,” according to a former top intelligence leader.
“I think that they did not meet a narrative the White House needed. And I’ll be very candid with you, they just didn’t,” retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, the former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, said Tuesday on CNN.
“I think the narrative was that al Qaeda was on the run, and [Osama] bin Laden was dead,” he added. “’They’re dead and … we’ve beaten them.'”
The comments are likely to reinforce critics’ allegations that the Obama administration is continually underestimating ISIS, even as its strength seems to grow. […] (Click here to read the rest.)
Well yes, they ARE “likely to reinforce critics’ allegations,” and rightly so, especially with the increasing number of intelligence analysts flat out saying the Administration manipulated their reports on ISIS to fit a narrative, not the reality on the ground.
Lt. Gen. Flynn touched on this claim, among other things, in this CNN interview as linked in The Hill:
Lt.G. Flynn nailed it – this comes from the President. There are few other ways to look at it, and what it says is disturbing indeed.
Also disturbing is what the IRS is doing now – you guessed it – to Tea Party-affiliated groups. Since the IRS Investigation that wasn’t an investigation was closed, despite not interviewing a bunch of people involved and despite the IRS admitting – ADMITTING – it targeted Tea Party/Conservative groups, nothing much happened to any of the parties involved. Well. except for Lois Lerner getting off scott-free with her retirement benefits firmly in place.
And, with the IRS now emboldened to continue its deplorable practices of targeting groups who disagree politically with Democrats, it has proposed a particularly problematic rule. From the Daily Signal:
Tea Party Patriots is launching an email and social media campaign—using #IRSPowerGrab—today, encouraging supporters and conservative leaders nationwide to push back against a rule proposed by the Internal Revenue Service that would give nonprofits the option to collect the Social Security numbers of donors who contribute $250 or more to an organization.
“They don’t need to be collecting Social Security numbers. Donations to nonprofits are allowed to be kept confidential,” Jenny Beth Martin, co-founder of Tea Party Patriots, told The Daily Signal. “Having gone through the [IRS] targeting [of conservative groups] because our name is Tea Party Patriots, I’m very sensitive to anything that expands the IRS’ reach into nonprofits and who their donors are.”
“We’ve seen that the IRS has successfully targeted organizations, and employees of the IRS have abused the power of the agency against people they perceive as political opponents,” Martin said. “Having more information about who supports those organizations would give them the potential to continue the abuse of power and hurt the individuals, not just the groups. That’s the danger of it.”
Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation, joined Martin in opposing the proposed rule. In an interview with The Daily Signal, von Spakovsky cited a lawsuit the National Organization for Marriage filed against the IRS alleging that an official with the tax agency leaked a copy of confidential tax information listing the group’s donors. The IRS paid the National Organization for Marriage $50,000 to settle the suit. […] (Click here to read the rest.)
No kidding there is no reason to trust the IRS with Social Security numbers of donors since they already admitted they can’t be trusted with it.
Huh – come to think of it, considering how Clinton, Obama, and the IRS have conducted themselves over the past 5 years or so, I think it reinforces what many of us already knew – they cannot be trusted.
That’s what I think anyway. How about you? This is an Open Thread.