Presumptuous Politics

Saturday, September 3, 2016

BREAKING: Justice Department Just Filed For ACTION Against Hillary

A new filing by the Department of Justice contains a key phrase that some might construe as a hint at criminal prosecution being planned for Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

Last week, Vice News reporter Jason Leopold formally protested the classification of an FBI declaration that provided details about the investigation into how sensitive information ended up on Clinton’s private email server.
The Justice Department submitted the declaration as part of “a secret filing,” but a U.S. District Court Judge ordered them to publicly submit a redacted copy of the document or at least “show cause why” that isn’t possible.
They responded in kind by saying they couldn’t make the document public because it would “adversely affect the ongoing investigation” into Clinton’s private email server.
Fair enough, but it is two words further into the DOJ memorandum that will be sure to raise some eyebrows. They claim they can’t reveal the document because it could “reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings.”
Via Law Newz:

Attorneys with the U.S. Department of Justice say they cannot make public a classified FBI declaration because it would “adversely affect the ongoing investigation” into Hillary Clinton’s private email server. The recent filing by DOJ attorneys, obtained by LawNewz.com, is significant because it not only acknowledges the ongoing federal probe, but also asserts that if the declaration is made public, it could “reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings.”

Enforcement proceedings? Does this mean the FBI has found enforcement to be necessary?
It should be noted that this particular phrase is used in federal law on disclosing public information “compiled for law enforcement purposes,” in tandem with another set criteria – when “the investigation or proceeding involves a possible violation of criminal law.”
The Legal Information Institute writes:

(1)Whenever a request is made which involves access to records described in subsection (b)(7)(A) and—

(A) the investigation or proceeding involves a possible violation of criminal law; and

(B) there is reason to believe that (i) the subject of the investigation or proceeding is not aware of its pendency, and (ii) disclosure of the existence of the records could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings, the agency may, during only such time as that circumstance continues, treat the records as not subject to the requirements of this section.

That’s a far cry from the “security review” Clinton has claimed the FBI is undertaking.

FBI files show Clinton claimed ignorance on classification

FBI and DOJ to make some Clinton email documents public

Several dozen pages of documents released Friday from the FBI’s Hillary Clinton email probe show the former secretary of state repeatedly claimed to have little training or understanding about the classification process – despite leading the department that handled such information on a regular basis and having a security clearance.
The document dump also revealed the gaps that remain in the record. Not only were numerous sections – and entire pages – redacted, but the files showed the FBI could not obtain 13 Clinton mobile devices that may have been used to send emails from her personal email address, in addition to two iPads. And they showed Clinton claiming she could not recall numerous details.
But perhaps most striking were Clinton’s repeated statements regarding her grasp of the classification process. In response to the release, GOP Chairman Reince Priebus said Clinton’s claims suggest she either is “incompetent” or “lied.”
CLICK TO READ THE DOCUMENTS HERE AND HERE
According to the files, Clinton claimed to have relied on the judgment of her aides and other officials to handle classified material appropriately. She even told investigators -- when asked what the “C” marking meant before a paragraph in an email marked “Confidential” – that “she did not know and could only speculate it was referencing paragraphs marked in alphabetical order.”
The FBI document notes that the email was in fact marked “classified at the Confidential level.” And when asked about different classification types like “Top Secret,” Clinton went on to say she “did not pay attention to the ‘level’ of classified information and took all classified information seriously.”
The documents also say Clinton claimed she could not recall “any briefing or training by State related to the retention of federal records or handling of classified information.” Further, Clinton “could not give an example of how classification of a document was determined.”
Such passages could help explain why FBI Director James Comey said during congressional testimony in July that there were questions over whether Clinton was “sophisticated enough” to know at the time what a particular classified marking signified.
Clinton's server was found to have more than 2,000 emails with classified material. Most were retroactively classified, but Comey has disputed Clinton’s insistence that none of them were marked as such at the time.
The FBI ultimately did not pursue charges against Clinton for her use of personal email while secretary of state, with Comey saying there was no evidence anyone intentionally mishandled classified information. He did, however, call Clinton “extremely careless.”
The FBI took the rare step Friday of publishing pages from the investigation after pressure to release the materials. They released a summary of Clinton’s July 2 FBI interview and a summary of the FBI investigation itself.
Despite Clinton’s apparent claims of ignorance on the classification process, Republicans said the files show how reckless she was.
"These documents demonstrate Hillary Clinton's reckless and downright dangerous handling of classified information during her tenure as secretary of state. They also cast further doubt on the Justice Department's decision to avoid prosecuting what is a clear violation of the law,” House Speaker Paul Ryan said in a statement.
Donald Trump spokesman Jason Miller said in a statement that the files “reinforce her tremendously bad judgment and dishonesty.”
Republican National Committee Chairman Priebus called the documents a “devastating indictment of her judgment, honesty and basic competency,” adding that her interview answers “either show she is completely incompetent or blatantly lied to the FBI or the public. Either way it’s clear that, through her own actions, she has disqualified herself from the presidency.”
Clinton campaign spokesman Brian Fallon defended the candidate in a statement: “We are pleased that the FBI has released the materials from Hillary Clinton's interview, as we had requested. While her use of a single email account was clearly a mistake and she has taken responsibility for it, these materials make clear why the Justice Department believed there was no basis to move forward with this case.”
Regarding Clinton’s own authority to classify, the files stated she “could not recall how often she used this authority or any training or guidance provided by State.”
The FBI's investigation also concluded Clinton never sought or asked permission to use a private server or email address during her tenure as the nation's top diplomat, which violated federal records keeping policies.
Clinton has repeatedly said her use of private email was allowed. But in July she told FBI investigators she "did not explicitly request permission to use a private server or email address," the FBI wrote. They said no one at the State Department raised concerns during her tenure, and that Clinton said everyone with whom she exchanged emails knew she was using a private email address.
The documents also include technical details about how the server in the basement of Clinton's home in Chappaqua, New York, was set up. Large portions of the documents were redacted.
Friday's release of documents involving the Democratic presidential nominee is a highly unusual step, but one that reflects extraordinary public interest in the investigation into Clinton's server.
“We are making these materials available to the public in the interest of transparency and in response to numerous Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests,” the FBI said in a statement. “Appropriate redactions have been made for classified information or other material exempt from disclosure under FOIA. “
After a yearlong investigation, the FBI recommended against prosecution in July, and the Justice Department then closed the case.
The notes show Clinton was pressed for information on specific sensitive emails. She was asked, among other details, about an email that mentioned a report about an Afghan national. As Fox News previously reported, this chain discussed the individual’s ties to the CIA.
The notes also show an unnamed individual told the bureau he deleted Clinton’s “archive mailbox” in late March 2015 using a program known as BleachBit, which would have been shortly after the original New York Times story on her private server.
“In a follow-up FBI interview on May 3, 2016, ---- indicated he believed he had an 'oh sh-t' moment and sometime between March 25-31, 2015 deleted the Clinton archive mailbox from the PRN server and used BleachBit to delete the exported .PST files he had created on the server system containing Clinton's e-mails,” the FBI notes said.
Meanwhile, the documents said the FBI identified 13 mobile devices associated with her two phone numbers. The Justice Department was unable to obtain any of them.
Republican Rep. Trey Gowdy, of South Carolina, continued to press the FBI to release more, saying the summaries released Friday are of “little benefit” by themselves.
“The public is entitled to all … information, including the testimony of the witnesses at Platte River Networks, the entity which maintained the private server. The public will find the timeline and witness responses and failures to respond instructive,” he said in a statement.

Santa Clara police threaten to boycott 49ers games in wake of Kaepernick controversy


Time for 49ers to cut Kaepernick, besides he's not all that good of a player.

Authorities in Northern California have threatened to stop working San Francisco 49ers games in response to Colin Kaepernick sitting during the national anthem in protest of police brutality and racial injustice.
In a letter obtained by KNTV, the Santa Clara police union told the 49ers organization that officers wouldn’t work at the stadium if it doesn’t “take action” against Kaepernick over his protest. The station noted that about 70 Santa Clara police officers work eight home games per year.
"The board of directors of the Santa Clara Police Officer's Association has a duty to protect its members and work to make all of their workings environments free of harassing behavior,” the letter added.
Kaepernick’s decision to sit for the national anthem and to wear socks in practice depicting pigs as cops has drawn much scrutiny from the Santa Clara officers. Police said they are angered and frustrated with the 6-year veteran.
The 49ers released a statement in support of Kaepernick’s freedom of expression as soon as the backlash started to begin.
"In respecting such American principles as freedom of religion and freedom of expression, we recognize the right of an individual to choose to participate, or not, in our celebration of the national anthem,” the organization said.
Kaepernick’s has caused a firestorm on social media and throughout the nation, including fans, media and veterans.
His protest continued Thursday night when he decided to kneel for the national anthem in San Diego during the Chargers’ Salute to the Military. He was joined by defensive back Eric Reed in his protest.
Seattle Seahawks player Jeremy Lane also sat for the national anthem when the Seahawks played the Oakland Raiders.
Kaepernick pledges to donate the first $1 million he makes this season to communities that help people.

Friday, September 2, 2016

Black Lives Matter Cartoons

Black Lives Matter accuses Dems of 'placating' group, after memo leaked

Black Lives Matter slammed the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee after a memo leaked late Wednesday seemed to show the group carefully coaching candidates on how to avoid angering the "radical" activists.
The November 2015 memo included tips like: Do not offer “support for concrete policy positions;” be sure to "lead from behind;" stick to "small" meetings; and avoid mentioning terms like "black-on-black crime."
On its Facebook page, BLM said officials should "stop pacifying" them.
“We are disappointed at the DCCC’s placating response to our demand to value all Black life. Black communities deserve to be heard, not handled. People are dying,” the organization said, in response to the leaked document.
The leaked files were posted along with other Democratic documents by Guccifer 2.0, a hacker of unknown origin who the U.S. says could be working out of Russia and is intent on disrupting the U.S. presidential election. Guccifer 2.0 claims the documents were taken from House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s personal computer.
Pelosi spokesman Drew Hammill, in a statement, called the leak an “attempt by Russia to influence our election,” while saying Pelosi “does not support the content or attitude of this memo. On many occasions, Leader Pelosi has publicly supported the ideals embraced by the Black Lives Matter movement and continues to do so.”
He also noted Pelosi “does not have a personal computer at the DCCC so no hacked, dumped or doctored documents can be attributed to her computer.”
It's the latest leak to dog Democrats, after another document dump exposed discussions in the upper reaches of the party about undermining Hillary Clinton primary foe Bernie Sanders.
The Nov. 19, 2015, memo was sent to DCCC staff by Troy Perry, who was the DCCC director of diversity but now works for the Clinton campaign. The DCCC is House Democrats' campaign arm.
In the email, he lays out the “best practices” for dealing with Black Lives Matter members.
“If approached by BLM activists, campaign staff should offer to meet with local activists. Invited BLM attendees should be limited,” the email said. “Please aim for personal or small group meetings. Listen to their concerns, don’t offer support for concrete policy positions.”
The memo also urged against mentioning "black on black crime" or "all lives matter."
"This response will garner additional media scrutiny and only anger BLM activists," the memo said.
Meredith Kelly, national press secretary for the DCCC, said in a statement Wednesday that the organization “highly respects and values the leadership of the Black Lives Matter movement.”
“In less than two years, BLM has evolved from three words into a political force that is changing and waking our nation,” she said. “At the DCCC, we highly encourage our candidates to not only embrace the importance of this movement, but to meet with and listen to community activists to partner social change.”
Black Lives Matter is a national organization that was created in 2012 after the shooting death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin. The movement has since grown and the group has been at the forefront of documenting and protesting the killings of Alton Sterling, a black man shot several times during an encounter with police officers outside a convenience store, and Philando Castile, a Minnesota man whose death was livestreamed on the Internet.
Its members have also gotten into confrontations with political candidates, including Democrats.

State Department to release all Clinton schedules before election

The State Department agreed Thursday to turn over all the planning schedules from Hillary Clinton's time serving as secretary of state to The Associated Press by mid-October in an abrupt reversal from U.S. government lawyers' warning last week that hundreds of pages would not be released until after the presidential election.
The decision will make available all of Clinton's minute-by-minute schedules before the presidential election.
Those planning documents offer a detailed look at Clinton's daily routine during her four-year tenure as secretary of state between 2009 and 2013.
The State Department provided the AP some of the Democratic presidential nominee's official calendars from her time at the department, but some of those calendars had been edited after her events and, in some cases, names of those who met with her had been omitted.
The department has so far released about half of her more complete daily schedules.
"As stated in today’s court filing, the Department had no objection to shifting its resources as long as its overall processing burden was not increased," State Department Spokesperson John Kirby said in a statement. "Consequently, the Department plans to complete its production of former Secretary Clinton’s schedules not later than October 17.”
The new agreement Thursday was drawn up after government lawyers told the AP last week that the department expected to release the last of the detailed daily schedules around Dec. 30, weeks after the election. The AP had objected to the delays.
The daily schedules drew attention last week after the AP reviewed the two years of schedules released so far, plus Clinton's official calendars. From those, the AP determined that more than half the people who Clinton met or spoke with — outside of members of the U.S. or foreign governments — had donated to the Clinton Foundation either personally or through companies or groups.
The AP's review focused on Clinton's discretionary contacts with outside interests and excluded her meetings or calls with federal officials or foreign government representatives, because those contacts were part of her regular diplomatic obligations.
Clinton has said the AP's analysis was flawed because it did not account fully for all meetings and phone calls during her entire term as secretary. She also said the analysis should have included meetings with federal employees and foreign diplomats.
The State Department's decision Thursday to turn over all of the more-detailed daily schedules by Oct. 17 means it will have to triple its pace of producing 600 pages a month. That production schedule was ordered last January by U.S. District Court Judge Richard Leon.
The AP first asked for all Clinton's calendars in 2010 and again in 2013 under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act, but the State Department did not release them. After further delays, the AP sued the State Department in federal court in March 2015 to obtain the planning materials and other records, leading to Leon's order.

Watchdog: Foundation exec sought help from Clinton aide on diplomatic passports

Emails shed light on Huma involvement in Clinton Foundation

A new batch of emails released Thursday allegedly shows a top Clinton Foundation official asking Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin for help obtaining diplomatic passports – though Clinton officials say the request was related to the effort to secure the release of two American journalists held in North Korea.
The July 2009 exchange was included in the release of 510 pages of State Department documents obtained by the conservative group Judicial Watch, which had sued in court for records.
In the exchange, then-Clinton Foundation executive Doug Band says he needs the special passports for himself and others.
“Need get me/ justy and jd dip passports,” he writes. “We had them years ago but they lapsed and we didn’t bother getting them.”
“Ok will figure it out,” Abedin replies.
Bill Clinton spokesman Angel Urena said in response Thursday that the exchange does not tell the whole story.
“The trip led to the successful release of two American journalists who were being held in North Korea,” Urena said. “This request turned out to be unnecessary and the trip was able to occur without diplomatic passports.”
But Judicial Watch noted that federal law “strictly limits” such passports to certain individuals, including Foreign Service officers and those “having diplomatic status or comparable status because he or she is traveling abroad to carry out diplomatic duties on behalf of the U.S. Government.” Their family members and government contractors also are eligible.
“The idea that the State Department would even consider a diplomatic passport for Clinton Foundation executives is beyond belief,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said in a statement.
Clinton campaign spokesman Josh Schwerin also said the request was related to freeing the journalists.
“Judicial Watch is now attacking State Department officials and the 42^nd President of the United States for rescuing two American journalists from North Korea,” Schwerin said in a written statement. “This is a new low even for this right-wing organization that has been going after the Clintons since the 1990s.”
The State Department referred Fox News back to the federal regulations, saying they could not comment on individual cases.
Judicial Watch said the new documents include 37 email exchanges not in the original 30,000 handed over to the State Department.
The Judicial Watch release comes on the heels of another release earlier this week between Band and Abedin.
In that exchange of emails -- released as part of a public records lawsuit filed by the conservative group Citizens United -- Band suggested individuals from companies that had donated to the foundation be included at a State Department lunch with then-Chinese President Hu Jintao scheduled for January 2011, according to ABC News.

Trump changed immigration policy speech after Mexican president's tweet

As Donald Trump arrived in Phoenix late Wednesday, fresh from a visit to Mexico City’s presidential palace, he had in his hands a big immigration speech that omitted the usual line that Mexico would have to pay for his proposed wall along the U.S. southern border.
Just after landing, though, Mr. Trump discovered that Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto had tweeted that he had told the Republican presidential nominee during their private meeting earlier that day that his country would refuse to pay for the wall.
Mr. Trump was peeved that Mr. Peña Nieto had gone public with the fact that the Mexican president had broken what Mr. Trump considered a deal to keep the question of paying for the wall off the table at their initial meeting.
So Mr. Trump hurriedly inserted a new sentence in his immigration speech, and he soon boomed out from the podium his traditional declaration that the wall would be paid for by Mexico—adding, “They don’t know it yet but they’re going to pay for the wall.”
“I had no choice,” Mr. Trump said in an interview on Thursday. But he also said of the Mexican president, “I liked him very much.”
All told, Wednesday was a day of exceptional twists and turns, spanning multiple time zones and two countries, on the trade and immigration issues that have become signatures of the Trump presidential campaign.
The day wasn't only one of the most unusual in the campaign, but one of the most controversial. Many Mexicans were incensed that their president invited Mr. Trump. A poll published in the Reforma newspaper Wednesday showed 85% of Mexicans disapproved of the invitation, and 72% thought it weakened the Mexican government.
As the dispute between Mr. Trump and Mr. Peña Nieto over paying for the wall escalated, John Podesta, the chairman of Democrat Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, tweeted late Thursday: “What a mess.”
The high-stakes day, which seemed to have been put together at the last minute, actually had been discussed internally for weeks, according to Trump campaign advisers. The campaign saw the meeting in Mexico as a chance to appeal to moderate voters, and the immigration speech as a chance to motivate Mr. Trump’s core voters.
A person close to Mr. Peña Nieto said that “since there was such a clear disagreement in preparatory conversations over issues about the wall and its payment, both parties agreed not to discuss them at the meeting, and instead talk about other topics, such as the great contribution that the Mexican community makes in the U.S., illegal drugs and weapons trafficking, bilateral trade, within North America and the rest of the world.” The person added: “Before the conversation began, Mr. Peña Neto reiterated to Mr. Trump that Mexico won’t pay for any wall, and as agreed, they discussed other topics.”
At the press conference after the meeting, the Trump campaign got the photo op it wanted of Mr. Trump and a world leader. The size of the press turnout pleased the candidate. When asked if they discussed the GOP nominee’s proposed wall, Mr. Trump said they did, but not who would pay for it. Mr. Peña Nieto stayed silent. It wasn’t until landing in Phoenix that Mr. Trump saw the Mexican’s tweet about not paying.
Mr. Trump and his team were stunned, advisers said. News reports were questioning why Mr. Trump didn’t discuss the payment issue at the joint press conference.