Weekly Update: Strzok Drafted Comey’s Letter to Congress About Weiner’s Laptop


In Judicial Watch’s Weekly Update Tom Fitton exposes the blatant corruption of the Deep State against President Donald Trump and his Administration. Fitton also delves into a Federal Judge telling the Department of Army to reconsider its refusal to award Staff Sgt. Joshua Berry a Purple Heart for wounds received from Islamic Terrorist Nidal Malik Hasan during the Fort Hood Massacre in 2009.

 

Staff Sgt. Joshua Berry – Wounded at Ft. Hood

 

In case you haven’t figured it out, Deep State is simply another name for the Democratic Party. And the Dems have string pullers largely embodied under the auspices of former President Barack Hussein Obama. And at the risk of sounding the Conspiracy Theorist nut, you can globalist string pullers such as George Soros.

 

JRH 9/8/18

In this current state of media censorship & defunding, consider chipping in a few bucks for enjoying (or despising) this Blog.

Please Support NCCR

********************

Weekly Update: Strzok Drafted Comey’s Letter to Congress About Weiner’s Laptop

 

Email sent by Tom Fitton

Email sent 9/7/2018 5:31 PM

Judicial Watch (online version)

 

Strzok’s ‘Fingerprints’ Are on Comey’s Letter About the Weiner Laptop

Army Must Rethink Purple Heart for Joshua Berry in Fort Hood Terror Attack

State Dept. Uses Outdated, Unsecure System to Spot Visa/Passport Fraud

 

Strzok’s ‘Fingerprints’ Are on Comey’s Letter About the Weiner Laptop

 

We have added two new pieces to the giant jigsaw puzzle showing the effort to undermine President Trump. They show more of the workings of the disgraced former FBI Director James Comey and fired FBI official Peter Strzok.

 

We have released 424 pages of FBI records, including an email revealing that Strzok created the initial draft of the October 2016 letter Comey sent to Congress notifying lawmakers of the discovery of Hillary Clinton emails on the laptop of disgraced former Congressman Anthony Weiner.

 

Another email suggests that the FBI had not yet completed its review of Clinton’s emails by the time Comey sent a second letter to Congress on November 6, 2016, reconfirming his belief that Hillary Clinton shouldn’t be charged with a crime.

 

The records were produced as a result of a June 2018 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed after the DOJ failed to respond to a September 1, 2017, request (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:18-cv-01448)). Judicial Watch is seeking:

 

  1. All drafts of James Comey’s statement closing the Clinton email investigation, from his original draft in April or May 2016 to the final version.

 

  1. All records of communications between or among FBI officials regarding Comey’s draft statement closing the Clinton email investigation, including all memoranda and/or analyses of the factual and/or legal justification for his July 5, 2016 announcement regarding his decision not to seek Mrs. Clinton’s prosecution.

 

  1. All records previously provided to the Office of Special Counsel in the course of its now-closed Hatch Act investigation of Mr. Comey.

 

The documents reveal that on October 27, 2016, Peter Strzok emailed other senior FBI officials a draft notice letter from Comey to Congress about the Weiner laptop discovery and the reopening of the Clinton investigation. The emails indicated that Strzok and another official Jon (Last Name Unknown) authored the notification to Congress. The notification, according the DOJ IG, came a full month after the emails were discovered by the FBI on the Weiner laptop.

 

According to the documents, at 11:04 p.m. on Saturday, November 5, 2016, FBI Chief of Staff James Rybicki sent Comey an email containing a redacted draft document which he referred to as a “New Proposal” saying: “Folks, Per our 1000pm conversation, below is a revised straw man for discussion. Again, we could use this if the review when completed supports our conclusions. My comments again in ALL CAPS and bold italics.”

 

Rybicki’s “New Proposal … straw man” apparently refers to a draft of Comey’s letter to Congress concerning the FBI’s review of the 650,000 Clinton emails found on Weiner’s laptop. At the time of the Rybicki email, Comey was preparing his letter informing Congress of the FBI’s findings, and according to page 390 of the June 2018 report from the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, the deliberations regarding the letter began on the afternoon of November 3 and concluded “very early on November 6.”

 

Despite Rybicki’s email suggesting late on November 5 that the review of the new emails had not been completed, Comey’s November 6 letter to Congress stated, “[W]e reviewed all of the communications that were to or from Hillary Clinton while she was Secretary of State. Based on our review, we have not changed our conclusions that we expressed in July with respect to Secretary Clinton.”

 

Comey’s “conclusions” in July were that no charges should be filed against Clinton, despite her repeatedly having sent classified information over her unsecured, non-State-Department server. Comey later admitted that he had drafted his July exoneration more than a month earlier.

 

Real Clear Investigations’ reporter Paul Sperry recently reported that “only 3,077 of the 694,000 emails [found on the Weiner laptop] were directly reviewed for classified or incriminating information. Three FBI officials completed that work in a single 12-hour spurt the day before Comey again cleared Clinton of criminal charges.”

 

These new documents provide more details of the corrupt and dishonest FBI investigation of the incredible revelations that Clinton’s classified and other emails were present on Anthony Weiner’s laptop. When will the Sessions DOJ and Wray FBI finally begin an honest investigation of Hillary Clinton’s national security crimes?

 

In a related Judicial Watch lawsuit, the State Department told the court in October 2017: “The State Department identified approximately 2,800 work-related documents among the documents provided by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.”

 

In January 2018, in accordance with a court order, the State Department began turning Weiner emails over to us. Initially, 18 classified emails were found in the 798 documents produced by the State Department.

 

Further examples of our work in this case on your behalf can be found here.

 

Army Must Rethink Purple Heart for Joshua Berry in Fort Hood Terror Attack

 

We’ve helped the father of a deceased Army sergeant get a step closer to winning the recognition his son deserves for his role in a terrorist attack within our borders.

 

U.S. District Court Judge Christopher R. Cooper has ordered the Army to reconsider its decision denying a Purple Heart to Sgt. Berry for injuries sustained in the 2009 international terrorist attack at Fort Hood, Texas.

 

If the Army wishes to stick with the denial, it must sufficiently explain why Sgt. Berry is not entitled to the Purple Heart.

 

On remand, the Army, assuming it wishes to stick with its determination, must explain why Berry is not entitled to a Purple Heart and do so with sufficient clarity that “a court can measure” the denial “against the ‘arbitrary or capricious’ standard of the [Administrative Procedures Act].”

 

On October 12, 2017, we filed a lawsuit on behalf of Sgt. Berry’s father, Howard M. Berry, who is challenging the Army’s denial of the Purple Heart under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) (Howard M. Berry v. Mark Esper, Secretary of the Army, et al. (No. 1:17-cv-02112)).

 

Following the Fort Hood attack, the Secretary of Defense declined to recognize the mass shooting as an international terrorist attack against the United States. Instead, the attack was characterized as “workplace violence.” As a result, active duty service members injured in the attack were ineligible for the Purple Heart, among other awards and benefits.

 

In response, Congress enacted legislation in 2014 mandating that service members killed or wounded in an attack targeting members of the armed forces and carried out by an individual in communication with and inspired or motivated by a foreign terrorist organization be eligible for the Purple Heart.

 

As a result, in 2015, the Secretary of the Army announced that service members injured or killed in the Fort Hood attack were eligible for the Purple Heart if they met the regulatory criteria.

 

The Purple Heart is not a “recommended” decoration for soldiers killed or wounded in combat or under attack. Rather, a soldier is entitled to a Purple Heart upon meeting specific criteria. Sgt. Berry met the regulatory criteria for an award of the Purple Heart.

 

Sgt. Berry suffered a dislocated left shoulder during the November 5, 2009, terrorist attack on Fort Hood by Maj. Nidal Hasan. Hasan, who admitted during his 2013 court martial that he had been influenced by al Qaeda, killed 13 people and injured 30 others.

 

In witness statements given to the U.S. Army Criminal Investigative Command (“CID”) and in a separate statement given to a Texas Ranger, Sgt. Berry had estimated that Hasan fired 30-40 rounds outside Building 42004 at Ft. Hood. Sgt. Berry told those around him to get down on the floor and stay away from the doors and windows. When Sgt. Berry heard gunshots hit the metal doors near him, he leaped over a desk to take cover and, in so doing, dislocated his left shoulder. He then heard Hasan trying to kick in the doors. According to a witness statement from another individual, Hasan fired three rounds at the briefing room doors.

 

Mr. Berry applied for a posthumous award of the Purple Heart to his son. The U.S. Army Decorations Board denied Mr. Berry’s application. In April 2015, the Army awarded the Purple Heart to 47 service members injured in the Fort Hood attack. Sgt. Berry was not among them.

 

On April 17, 2016, upon Mr. Berry’s application for review, a three-member panel of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records recommended that all Army records concerning Sgt. Berry be corrected to award Sgt. Berry the Purple Heart. The panel found “[t]here is no question that [Sgt. Berry]’s injury met the basic medical criteria for award of the [Purple Heart].” The Board’s eight-page determination provided a detailed analysis of “the degree to which the enemy (i.e., the terrorist) caused [Sgt. Berry’s] injury.”

 

A few months later, however, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Review Boards) Francine C. Blackmon issued a single paragraph memorandum rejecting the Corrections Board’s recommendation:

 

I have reviewed the findings, conclusions, and Board member recommendations. I find there is not sufficient evidence to grant relief. Therefore, under the authority of 10 U.S.C. § 1552, I have determined that the facts do not support a conclusion that his injury met the criteria for a Purple Heart.

 

In his ruling, Judge Cooper said the court could not “meaningfully evaluate the reasoning behind” Blackmon’s decision. Decisions which are “utterly unreviewable,” the judge added “must be vacated as arbitrary and capricious.” Judge Cooper noted the Army’s final memorandum:

 

provides no meaningful analysis—only a boilerplate determination “that the facts do not support a conclusion that [Berry’s] injury met the criteria for a Purple Heart.” Why not? Was there conflicting evidence regarding how immediate of a threat Hasan posed to Berry as he sat inside the building? Was the evidence clear but the Deputy Assistant Secretary thought that Berry could have taken cover without injuring himself? Or did she read the regulations as categorically taking the Purple Heart off the table for service members injured while taking cover?

 

The denial letter provides no hints. In turn, the Court cannot meaningfully evaluate the reasoning behind it. That is enough to warrant remand.

 

We are thrilled by the court’s ruling and hope the Army quickly comes to its senses and finally awards Sgt. Berry a well-deserved Purple Heart.

 

State Dept. Uses Outdated, Unsecure System to Spot Visa/Passport Fraud

 

You will no longer wonder how Hillary Clinton got away with using a non-government email system housed in her home basement when you read this incredible story from our Corruption Chronicles blog. And you’ll wonder if the government learned anything at all from 9/11.

 

Though it claims the 9/11 attacks “reenergized” its mission, the State Department branch responsible for spotting visa and passport fraud fails to practice basic security protocols, leaving the nation extremely vulnerable to foreign threats. To keep potential terrorists from entering the United States, the monstrous agency with a $37 billion annual budget uses outdated machines that are poorly monitored and fails to protect data and perform basic security scans, according to a distressing federal audit. The report documents the alarming inefficiencies in a decades-old system—Bureau of Consular Affairs Fraud Prevention Program (CA/FPP)—used by the State Department to determine if foreigners seeking U.S. visas are being candid about their identity and where they have traveled. The goal is to oversee and coordinate the integrity of U.S. visa and citizenship processes by stopping fraud in the visa and passport system, a crucial tool to protect national security.

 

It turns out that the State Department’s security team is a bit of a joke, according to the incredible lapses documented in the report, which was made public recently by the agency’s Office of Inspector General (OIG). The team doesn’t even bother to patch the system, scan it for computer viruses or audit for evidence of breaches or compromises by hackers. In short, the State Department consular division ignores basic information security practices in this essential program used to screen potential threats. Nearly two decades after the worst terrorist attack on American soil, this is incredibly disturbing. In fact, the report states that “the events of September 11, 2001, reenergized CA/FPP’s mission.” Not enough, apparently. “OIG found deficiencies that included shared passwords and lack of access control lists or visitor logs,” the watchdog writes in its report. In addition, the flawed system’s “security officer did not perform regular patch management or anti-virus scanning on the network or regular audit and accountability reviews to identify data loss or potential intruder activities.”

 

It gets better, or rather, more enraging. The OIG found that no one monitors the server and the State Department doesn’t keep adequate logs of who accesses the information on the database. In fact, a SharePoint site established by the agency a decade ago to track “possible consular malfeasance” has never even been examined. Auditors found that management was not even aware that the system had never undergone an assessment to determine whether it contained information that exceeded SharePoint’s security categorization. “Without applying appropriate controls, the case management system and its information are vulnerable to unauthorized access or compromise,” the report states. This indicates that breaches could very well have occurred, but we’ll never know for sure thanks to the government’s incompetence. This may seem inconceivable to most Americans as the nation faces serious threats from radical elements.

 

OIG investigators gathered mountains of evidence in the course of their probe, which considered interviews with hundreds of State Department personnel and contractors as well as observations of daily operations and written questionnaires. This includes 178 interviews and 224 questionnaires completed by consular officers in the field as well as 54 filled out by agency employees and contractors domestically. The watchdog makes a multitude of recommendations to fix this laughable “security” system, but this very basic one sticks out: “The Bureau of Consular Affairs should implement a website content management process for the Office of Fraud Prevention Programs that includes a dedicated team responsible for the regular updating of website content.” Another simple recommendation is that the State Department’s Office of Fraud Prevention Programs implement required security controls in accordance with federal standards. It’s troubling that the agency watchdog has to suggest these elementary, common sense approaches to a program that is so imperative to national security.

 

Then again, this is the same agency that allowed Hillary Clinton to traffic highly classified information on an unsecure, personal email server. It is also the agency run by high-level officials who knew weak security at U.S. embassies and consulates worldwide could result in a tragedy like Benghazi long before Islamic jihadists raided the Special Mission, killing four Americans.

 

Every big organization has IT troubles, but this ineptitude imperils our country.

 

Until next week …

+++++++++++++++++++

VIDEO: Tom Fitton’s Weekly Update – Deep State Sedition against Trump!

 

Posted by Judicial Watch

Streamed live 9/7/18

 

Deep State Sedition against Trump, Court Victory for Ft. Hood Soldier, Mueller-Weiner Laptop Docs, NEW Fusion GPS/Steele Docs.

 

READ THE REST

_________________

© 2018 Judicial Watch, Inc. 

 

Judicial Watch is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. Contributions are received from individuals, foundations, and corporations and are tax-deductible to the extent allowed by law.

 

DONATE

 

425 Third Street SW, Suite 800
Washington, DC 20024
888-593-8442

 

About Judicial Watch

 

Judicial Watch, Inc., a conservative, non-partisan educational foundation, promotes transparency, accountability and integrity in government, politics and the law. Through its educational endeavors, Judicial Watch advocates high standards of ethics and morality in our nation’s public life and seeks to ensure that political and judicial officials do not abuse the powers entrusted to them by the American people. Judicial Watch fulfills its educational mission through litigation, investigations, and public outreach.

 

The motto of Judicial Watch is “Because no one is above the law”. To this end, Judicial Watch uses the open records or freedom of information laws and other tools to investigate and uncover misconduct by government officials and litigation to hold to account politicians and public officials who engage in corrupt activities.

 

Litigation and the civil discovery process not only uncover information for the education of the American people on anti-corruption issues, but can also provide a basis for civil authorities to criminally prosecute corrupt officials. Judicial Watch seeks to ensure high ethical standards in the judiciary through monitoring activities and the use of the judicial ethics process to hold judges to account.

 

Judicial Watch’s investigation, legal, and judicial activities provide the basis for strong educational outreach to the American people. Judicial Watch’s public education programs include speeches, opinion editorials (op-eds), publications, educational conferences, media outreach, radio and news television appearances, and direct radio outreach through informational commercials and public service announcements.

 

Through its Open Records Project, Judicial Watch also provides  READ THE REST

 

Don’t be Fooled, There is a Nefarious Benghazi Cover-up


Benghazi Cover-up 2

John R. Houk

© June 25, 2014

 

Today I received a Breitbart News email which is really a promo from Judicial Watch.

 

Judicial Watch is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. Contributions are received from individuals, foundations, and corporations and are tax-deductible to the extent allowed by law.” (From Donation Page of Judicial Watch)

 

Thus Judicial Watch is an NGO government and judiciary watchdog organization. JW managed to get a Judge to force the release of documents in which Congress originally subpoenaed but the government failed to deliver. Although Leftists are playing ostriches with their heads in the sand or are just downright deceptive are still claiming there is nothing up their sleeves and are spinning the JW smoking gun data collected.

 

I call this a promo email because the hook is to read is the offer of JW’s Benghazi Cover Up Report for free. After you click the link in the email it takes you to a page in which you provide your name, address, email and zip code followed by a link to get the report. The report is a 20 odd pages of a pdf file and you are actually sent to the link: The Benghazi Attack of September 11, 2012: Analysis & Further Questions from a Diplomatic Security Service Regional Security Officer and Special Agent; Intro by Tom Fitton – 1/22/13; and an April 29, 2014 update pertaining to the FOIA documents the government was forced to give up by a Judge. So some of you may have read the 2013 portion of the pdf file.

 

Of course the promo part is the collecting of addresses and email undoubted for marketing and donor purposes in the future. I like JW so I don’t have a problem with that. I can always hit the delete button or file snail mail in the trash.

 

BUT you really should familiarize yourself with those report. I don’t know about you but I am getting weary of listening, reading and watching Leftists whine about two years of Congressional investigations and zero discoveries of crimes being discovered. The JW report CLEARLY demonstrates the entire Obama Administration is hell bent on covering up probable crimes by not being transparent in releasing documents and the obvious production of government officials lying to Congressional Committees. I am certain the Benghazigate revelations are a mere tip of the iceberg. Since obstruction is now being documented in Benghazi investigations you can count on the probability the other Obama labeled phony scandals have nefarious activities behind them.

 

So you can click the Judicial Watch link that is a promo to build their donor list (which is a worthy cause) or I provided the pdf link above. In the mean time I took the liberty to provide an incomplete excerpt of the pdf file of portions I find to be obscene obstructions by the Obama Administration. SO REALLY READ THE WHOLE REPORT.

 

JRH 6/25/14

Please Support NCCR

________________________________

Introduction by Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton

 

Judicial Watch promotes transparency, integrity and accountability in government, politics and the law. We carry out or mission through investigations, research, litigation and public education.  From time to time we produce Special Reports on important public policy matters to illuminate the operations of government in a way that informs the public and holds our trusted public servants accountable.

 

We have prepared this Special Report with the analysis, insights and expertise of Mr. Raymond Fournier, a recently retired Diplomatic Security Service Special Agent with more than thirty years of extraordinary experience managing all aspects of security, to include being a Regional Security Officer in United States Embassies in such countries as: Honduras, Sierra Leone, Belgium, and Lebanon — as well as other sensitive overseas postings to include Afghanistan and Israel. Specifically, Mr. Fournier possesses expertise in: assessing and managing risk; developing and executing security budgets and plans; organizing dignitary protection details; as well as technical, procedural security development and implementation to augment physical security.  Mr. Fournier’s assistance has been invaluable.

 

Judicial Watch has opened its own investigation of the Benghazi attack. Our staff of investigators and researchers includes former intelligence officers, analysts, military officers, attorneys, and journalists. Judicial Watch has more than ten (10) Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests pending with various Executive departments and agencies seeking all manner of records relating to the attack. We have filed separate lawsuits in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to compel the Obama administration to comply with the FOIA law and release the records we seek. In the interim, we pursue additional avenues of investigation in an effort to provide the American people with complete, accurate, factual information concerning a deadly attack costing the lives of United States Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three additional brave Americans.

 

Thomas Fitton

President

 

Washington, DC

January 22, 2013

 

_________________

Background

 

At 9:40 p.m. on the evening of September 11, 20l2, a group of approximately l50 heavily armed Islamist militia members attacked the United States’ diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya. The ensuing 8-hour assault on the Special Mission Compound (SMC, and hereafter: “Compound”) and the nearby CIA annex claimed the lives of four Americans: Ambassador Christopher Stevens, U.S. Foreign Service Specialist Sean Smith, and former Navy SEALS Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods.  Stevens, who had previously served as the U.S. Special Envoy to the Libyan Transitional National Council, was the first Ambassador killed in the line of duty since the l979 shooting of Ambassador Adolph Dubs in Kabul, Afghanistan.

 

In the aftermath of the attack, President Obama and senior administration officials were quick to identify Muslim outrage over an obscure Internet video mocking Mohammed as the motivation for the attack1.  In a September l2th statement about the incident, the President remarked, “Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others.”2

 

At a September l4, 20l2 event honoring the four victims, Secretary of State Hilary Clinton stated, “We’ve seen the heavy assault on our post in Benghazi that took the lives of those brave men. We’ve seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful Internet video that we had nothing to do with.”3

 

Those in Libya did not share this theory. During a September l5th television interview, Libyan President Mohamed al-Magarief observed that, “It’s clear from the timing on September 11th and from the detailed planning of the attacks that behind it there were experienced masterminds. It was not a spontaneous act in protest of a movie. This has been prepared for a long time on this specific day…If you take into account the weapons used, like RPGs and other heavy weapons, it proves that it was preplanned. It’s a dirty act of revenge, and it has nothing to do with religion.”4

 

Nevertheless, top administration officials continued to claim that the attack was spontaneous and the result of the video. During a September l6th television interview, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice infamously assessed the situation as follows:

 

“There was a hateful video that was disseminated on the Internet. It had nothing to do with the United States government and it’s one that we find disgusting and reprehensible. It’s been offensive to many, many people around the world. That sparked violence in various parts of the world, including violence directed against western facilities including our embassies and consulates. That violence is absolutely unacceptable, it’s not a response that one can ever condone when it comes to such     a video. And we have been working very closely and, indeed, effectively with the governments in the region and around the world to secure our personnel, secure our embassy, condemn the violent response to this video.”5

 

 

Eventually, the administration was forced to acknowledge what many observers knew from the beginning — that the attack in Benghazi was neither spontaneous nor the result of an Internet video. On September 28th, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence reported that their revised assessment had determined it to be, “a deliberate and organized terrorist attack carried out by extremists” and that, “some of those involved were linked to groups affiliated with, or sympathetic to al-Qa’ida.”8

 

___________________________

ARB Report/Summary of Findings

 

As required by the Omnibus Diplomatic and Antiterrorism Act of l986, the State Department convened an Accountability Review Board (ARB, and hereafter “Board”) to investigate the attack on October l, 20l2.9 Secretary Clinton chose former Ambassador Thomas Pickering to chair the board. Pickering is also a member of the advisory board of the National Iranian American Council (NIAC)10, a left-wing advocacy group that opposes the imposition of economic sanctions against Iran and that, in the estimation of national security expert Kenneth Timmerman, “has been lobbying Congress to win support for an agenda that mirrors the goals of the Tehran regime.”11   In 2009, former FBI counterterrorism agent Kenneth Piernick reported that the group, “may be lobbying on behalf of Iranian government interests. Were I running the counterintelligence program at the bureau now, I would have cause to look into this further.”12

 

In her 2009 paper Rise of the Iran Lobby, published by the Center for Security Policy, former CIA officer Clare Lopez wrote that, “Ambassador Pickering’s positions on Iran include calls for bilateral talks without preconditions and a plan for a multinational uranium enrichment consortium in Iran. Iran has proposed a similar plan to the UN Security Council. Ambassador Pickering advocates a process leading to mutual diplomatic relations between Iran and the United States. …

 

The other members of the Board were former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen, former United Nations Undersecretary for Management Catherine Bertini, former State Department Interim Director of Overseas Building Operations Richard Shinnick, and former Deputy CIA Director Hugh Turner.  Despite State Department regulations requiring that Board members, “must possess expertise that will contribute to the work of the Board, e.g., knowledge, experience or training in areas such as foreign affairs, law, security, embassy construction, intelligence, and other areas appropriate to the Board’s work,”14 no security professionals were selected to the board convened to investigate the Benghazi attack.

 

 

Notably, the report contradicts the earlier claims by administration officials that the attacks resulted from a protest that escalated into violence. The Board, “concluded that there was no protest prior to the attacks, which were unanticipated in their scale and intensity.”

 

 

… Shortly after its release, House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Rep. Darrel Issa told reporters that he was, “deeply concerned that the unclassified report omits important information the public has a right to know. This includes details about the perpetrators of the attack in Libya as well as the less-than-noble reasons contributing to State Department decisions to deny security resources. Relevant details that would not harm national security have been withheld and the classified report suffers from an enormous over-classification problem.”16

 

 

Despite the self-evident fact that the security resources dedicated to the Compound in Benghazi were insufficient, State Department officials continued to defend their staffing decisions in the aftermath of the attack.  Under questioning by Rep. Darrell Issa during a House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing investigating the attack, State Department Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Programs Charlene Lamb asserted, “We had the correct number of assets in Benghazi at the time of 9/11.”21   According to published reports, the Regional Security Officer in Libya, Eric Nordstrom, told Congressional investigators that Lamb, “wanted to keep the number of U.S. security personnel in Benghazi ‘artificially low.’”22

 

_______________________________

Fallout

 

The day after the release of the Board’s report, numerous media outlets reported that four State Department officials responsible for the management and security of the Compound in Benghazi had resigned. Three were identified as Assistant Secretary of State Eric Boswell, Charlene Lamb, and Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Raymond Maxwell.23  In the weeks that followed, however, it became unclear whether the officials had really resigned or even faced any significant disciplinary measures. On December 26th, the New York Post reported that, “The highest-ranking official caught up in the scandal, Assistant Secretary of State Eric Boswell, has not ‘resigned’ from government service, as officials said last week. He is just switching desks. And the other three are simply on administrative leave and are expected back.”24

 

 

________________________

Additional questions Raised

 

 

 

… It is also known that the Ambassador met with the Turkish Consul General Ali Sait Akin on the evening of the attack. The purpose of that meeting has not been disclosed.  In October, Fox News reported that Stevens, “was in Benghazi to negotiate a weapons transfer, an effort to get SA-7 missiles out of the hands of Libya-based extremists.”31

 

Some experts believe that the Ambassador’s work in Benghazi may have been related to Administration efforts to transfer arms to Syrian opposition groups. As former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State and President of the Center for Security Policy Frank Gaffney wrote, “One of the places in Libya most awash with weapons in the most dangerous of hands is Benghazi. It now appears that Stevens was there — on a particularly risky day, with no security to speak of and despite now copiously documented concerns about his own safety and that of his subordinates — for another priority mission: sending arms recovered from the former regime’s stocks to the “opposition” in Syria.”32   Former CIA Officer Clare Lopez has characterized U.S. activities in Benghazi as “gun running” and reported that Administration officials were, “working with the very same al-Qaeda linked relationships in Libya to gather up and buy back and collect weapons from Gaddafi’s stockpile that were missing from the revolution in Libya last year and what it looks like is that they were shipping them onwards to Syria.”33

 

Further substantiating the theory that the Obama administration was involved in arms transfers to Syrian groups is a Times of London report published on September 14, 2012, “Syrian Rebels Squabble Over Weapons as Biggest Shipload Arrives from Libya.”34 According to the report: “Among more than 400 tonnes of cargo the vessel was carrying were SAM-7 surface-to-air anti-aircraft missiles and rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs), which Syrian sources said could be a game-changer for the rebels.” The connection to Benghazi was established by The Times through an examination of the ship’s port authority papers, The Times was shown the Libyan ship, The Intisaar or The Victory, in the Turkish port of Iskenderun and papers stamped by the port authority by the ship’s captain, Omar Mousaeeb, a Libyan from Benghazi and the head of an organisation called the Libyan National Council for Relief and Support, which is supporting the Syrian uprising.”

 

 

… (AFRICOM) deployed two unmanned aerial vehicles to survey the events in Benghazi — one to the Compound and the other to the airport during the evacuation of American personnel.  However, the report gives no description of the images captured by the UAVs. In addition, the involvement of AFRICOM in the response raises the important question of why lethal air support or other military assets were not deployed in response to the attack.

 

 

______________________

Conclusion

 

 

__________________

Latest Update: Judicial Watch: Benghazi Documents Point to White House on Misleading Talking Points

 

APRIL 29, 2014

 

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that on April 18, 2014, it obtained 41 new Benghazi-related State Department documents. They include a newly declassified email showing then-White House Deputy Strategic Communications Adviser Ben Rhodes and other Obama administration public relations officials attempting to orchestrate a campaign to “reinforce” President Obama and to portray the Benghazi consulate terrorist attack as being “rooted in an Internet video, and not a failure of policy.” Other documents show that State Department officials initially described the incident as an “attack” and a possible kidnap attempt.

 

 

Among the top administration PR personnel who received the Rhodes memo were White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, Deputy Press Secretary Joshua Earnest, then-White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer, then-White House Deputy Communications Director Jennifer Palmieri, then-National Security Council Director of Communications Erin Pelton, Special Assistant to the Press Secretary Howli

 

 

The documents Judicial Watch obtained also include a September 12, 2012, email from former Deputy Spokesman at U.S. Mission to the United Nations Payton Knopf to Susan Rice, noting that at a press briefing earlier that day, State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland explicitly stated that the attack on the consulate had been well planned. The email sent by Knopf to Rice at 5:42 pm said:

 

 

In the days following the Knopf email, Rice appeared on ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox News and CNN still claiming the assaults occurred “spontaneously” in response to the “hateful video.” On Sunday, September 16 Rice told CBS’s “Face the Nation:”

 

 

The Judicial Watch documents confirm that CIA talking points, that were prepared for Congress and may have been used by Rice on “Face the Nation” and four additional Sunday talk shows on September 16, had been heavily edited by then-CIA deputy director Mike Morell. According to one email:

 

The first draft apparently seemed unsuitable….because they seemed to encourage the reader to infer incorrectly that the CIA had warned about a specific attack on our embassy. On the SVTS, Morell noted that these points were not good and he had taken a heavy hand to editing them. He noted that he would be happy to work with [then deputy chief of staff to Hillary Clinton]] Jake Sullivan and Rhodes to develop appropriate talking points.

 

 

“Now we know the Obama White House’s chief concern about the Benghazi attack was making sure that President Obama looked good,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “And these documents undermine the Obama administration’s narrative that it thought the Benghazi attack had something to do with protests or an Internet video. Given the explosive material in these documents, it is no surprise that we had to go to federal court to pry them loose from the Obama State Department.”

 

 

________________________

Don’t be Fooled, There is a Nefarious Benghazi Cover-up

John R. Houk

© June 25, 2014

_______________________

The Benghazi Attack of September 11, 2012: Analysis & Further Questions from a Diplomatic Security Service Regional Security Officer and Special Agent

 

Judicial Watch, Inc. 425 Third Street, SW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20024

 

About Judicial Watch

 

Tel: (202) 646-5172

FAX: (202) 646-5199

 

Email: info@JudicialWatch.org

www.JudicialWatch.org

%d bloggers like this: