The National Archives, The Clintons’ History Scrubbers

This isn’t the first time somebody’s been asleep at the switch at The National Archives. Twice in recent memory they’ve screwed up. HUGE. And both times it helped the Clintons.

Funny that, huh? Who do they have in-pocket over there? Do they? I’m just wondering. Spit-balling. Thinking out-loud. But these two things, connected or not, fairly scream: Who’s in charge over there???? Anybody?????

NARA LogoThe first time they screwed-up it benefited Bill Clinton; presumably, by erasing from our institutional memory, his inaction in the face of the gathering threat leading up to 9/11.  Most recently it was to benefit his wife, Hillary Clinton, who used a secret, private server for all of her emails.  Now, you may ask, ‘Why blame the National Archives?’  Well, I’m not saying they deserve all the blame. Certainly not. I’m no liberal.  I don’t blame the gun when someone gets shot; I blame the shooter. Bill & Hillary Clinton are to blame for their crimes. Period.  But that doesn’t mean they didn’t have enablers, accomplices, if you will, either witting or unwitting.  Part of the Archives’ job, part of the documentary traffic their mandate requires they keep, is email.  How is it possible that they didn’t notice, for four years, that she hadn’t even bothered to set-up at .gov email account?  How is that possible?

So let’s walk down memory lane, shall we?  We’ll deal first with Bill’s janitorial job on America’s institutional memory, then we’ll deal with Hillary’s.

Recall, via the February 21, 2007 Washington Post article “Berger Case Still Roils Archives, Justice Dept.” that (article edited for clarity and brevity, bolds are mine):

During a meeting, November 23, 2004, (the Inspector General of the National Archives and Records Administration, Paul Brachfeld), in a chandeliered room at the Justice Department, (along with) the longtime head of the counterespionage section, the chief of the public integrity unit, a deputy assistant attorney general, some trial lawyers and a few FBI agents all looked down at their pant legs and socks.

(They were discussing) Brachfeld’s contention that President Clinton’s former national security adviser Samuel R. ‘Sandy’ Berger could have stolen original, uncatalogued, highly classified terrorism documents 14 months earlier by wrapping them around his socks and beneath his pants… Brachfeld wanted the Justice Department to notify officials of the 9/11 Commission that Berger’s actionsin combination with a bungled Archives response — might have obstructed the commission’s review of Clinton’s terrorism policies.

The Justice Department spurned the advice, and some of Brachfeld’s colleagues at the Archives greeted his warnings with accusations of disloyalty. …A report last month by the Republican staff of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee said for the first time that Berger’s visits were so badly mishandled that Archives officials had acknowledged not knowing if he removed anything else and destroyed it. The committee further argued that the 9/11 Commission should have been told more about Berger and about Brachfeld’s concerns…

The commission’s former general counsel, Dan Marcus, now an American University law professor, separately expressed surprise at how little the Justice Department told the commission about Berger and said it was ‘a little unnerving’ to learn from the congressional report exactly what Berger reviewed at the Archives and what he admitted to the FBI — including that he removed and cut up three copies of a classified memo.

In an April 1, 2005, press conference and private statements to the commission, the Justice Department stated instead that Berger had access only to copied documents, not originals. They also said the sole documents Berger admitted taking — five copies of a 2001 terrorism study — were later provided to the commission. (end)

But we now know that’s not true.

Via “information culled from The New York Times” in a WND piece entitled, “What Did Sandy Steal,” (not normally a site I would cite*), is analysis that is spot-on and widely believed among the non-kool-aid drinkers (Again, article is edited for clarity, and bolds & underlines are mine.):

Sandy Berger and Bill Clinton

Sandy Berger and President Bill Clinton

Sandy Berger was director of the National Security Center in the Clinton administration, and as such President Clinton’s top adviser on all national security matters. On Sept. 2, 2003, in a secure reading room at the National Archives building in Washington, Berger was reviewing classified documents from the Clinton era, in his capacity as Clinton’s point man in providing relevant materials to the independent commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks.

One such document was a copy of a White House “after-action” report that he himself had commissioned, while still National Security director, to assess the Clinton administration’s performance in responding to the so-called millennium terrorist threat before New Year’s 2000. (I am relying throughout on reports from the New York Times.) Berger put the document in his pocket and walked out of the National Archives with it.

Exactly a month later, on Oct. 2, 2003, in another visit to the Archives, he stuffed four copies of other versions of the same report into his clothes (some reports have specified his socks) and again walked out of the building with them.

At his own office later that day, Berger cut three of the copies into small pieces. Two days later staff members at the Archives took the matter up with him. He said the removals were inadvertent, and returned the two remaining copies of the report, but said nothing about the three he had destroyed.

The burning question here, of course, is what was in the three documents that Berger destroyed. We can be sure that Berger won’t tell us, or more precisely that we will never know whether anything he chooses to say on the subject is a lie. The documents are irretrievably gone, and Berger can carry the secret of their contents to his grave.  But you can bet your bottom dollar that they weren’t Bill Clinton’s secret recipes for chicken a la king. In fact, as a practical matter, there is only one thing they could have been, given the huge risk that Berger took in stealing them from the National Archives and destroying them.

Consider. All five were copies, or (as the Times puts it at one point) “versions,” of a single document: an assessment of terrorist threats produced during the Clinton administration. These copies had presumably been distributed to various major figures in the administration, and later collected and placed in the Archives. What interested Berger about five copies of the same document? Presumably, notes scribbled on them by the recipients. And what could have impelled him to destroy three of the five copies, and return the other two? Surely, that the notes on those three copies made it all too clear that somebody high up in the Clinton administration had perceived a threat very much like what happened on Sept. 11, but then failed to do anything whatever about it.

For whom would Berger be willing to risk a jail sentence? For himself, no doubt, and for President Clinton, and that just about completes the list. (end)

Now the wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton. What the hell happened? Well, when you don’t have Inspectors General at either State or the Archives, corruption and incompetence can run amok. Well, more amok than usual, because, really, this is the federal government, right? The whole place needs fumigating. But I digress.

From The Washington Times, June 3, 2015,”Acting IGs at State Dept., National Archives Ignored Looming Clinton Email Scandal”  (And, again, edited for clarity and brevity and bolds are mine):

A years-long vacancy in the State Department’s Office of inspector general allowed Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email account and server to hide her public records to continue unchecked, experts told a Senate committee Wednesday.US-Department-of-State-Logo

Daniel Epstein, president of nonpartisan watchdog Cause of Action, pointed to another empty inspector general office — this one in the National Archives and Records Administration — as a potential cause of the breakdown in transparency that occurred during Clinton’s tenure at the State Department.

James Springs, who now serves as the National Archives’ permanent inspector general, oversaw the agency in an interim capacity from September 2012 until March of this year.

That means the watchdog position was effectively empty as Clinton made her transition out of the State Department.

Epstein told the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee that the National Archives, under Springs’ oversight, “either was aware of the failure to preserve Mrs. Clinton’s emails or was extremely negligent in its efforts to monitor senior officials’ emails.” … (and, further suggests) the National Archives “had reason to know that the State Department was seeking legal justification for noncompliance with applicable regulations relating to email records,” Epstein said.

What’s more, transparency appeared to suffer at the State Department under another temporary inspector general.

Harold Geisel served as the agency’s interim watchdog while Clinton was secretary of state. Geisel had been named an ambassador by then-President Bill Clinton and donated to President Obama’s first presidential campaign, records show.

The Government Accountability Office raised concerns in April 2011 that Geisel’s career membership in the Foreign Service “resulted in, at a minimum, the appearance of independence impairment.”  (Annie note: YA THINK????) Yet Geisel continued to serve as acting inspector general until shortly after Clinton left office…” (end)

So, in summary, it appears the Clintons had janitors where they needed them.

And absolutely nothing will be done about.

God Bless America.


*That I would not normally cite WND as a source is a comment on others’ perception of the site, not mine.  They have people over there who actually know how to use a card-catalog at the library, value the importance of primary sources, and ask important questions.  While every collection of reports & reporters has flaws, I consume all media with a presumption of guilt (as it were), thus, as far as they present proper sourcing and and ask important questions I might not have otherwise thought of, I have no problem with them.

Linked? -> Cooked ISIS Intel + Petraeus + Mistresses = TAMPA

Did pillow-talk in TAMPA lead to BOTH the cooked ISIS intel AND the Petraeus scandal? And are they linked?

A lot of people thought it was shocking and curious that the Petraeus thing happened; that such a widely respected man with such a distinguished resume would be so careless with intel, even if it was just paper & printed and sitting in a locked home cabinet, as opposed to digital, sitting on a server in a bathroom closet, thus available to even the lowest level hacker in Russia or China, like some people we know.

It was also shocking that he was so publicly humiliated for it. Nobody responsible thought he should escape unpunished, to be sure, but there were plenty who thought the Obama Administration’s treatment of him was tinged with a certain amount of sadistic glee. Yeah, he had a mistress, which is what everyone remembers most about his downfall, but it’s hardly the first time a guy let his ____ do his thinking for him. That was the least of it.

Now fast-forward from November 2012, when Petraeus resigned in disgrace, to the recent cooked intel scandal. Not a month ago, we find out one of the whistleblowers raising alarm to the intel community’s Inspector General came from CENTCOM.  Where’s CENTCOM?  Tampa.  Now, hold on to that little piece of information and consider this:  Yesterday, Petraeus, “in his first public testimony before lawmakers since resigning as CIA director,” chooses that venue to publicly apologize “for sharing classified information with his biographer-mistress“… on the same day subpoenas start flying all over the place related to continuing litigation arising from his mistress/intel mess, from… a rich Tampa socialite (Jill Kelley).  Really? Can this really be a coincidence?

So, let’s pause for a second and see if we can knit this all together:  Turns out Tampa is CENTCOM’s (United States Central Command’s) domestic HQ (They have another facility overseas). Petraeus was CENTCOM’s chief from October 2008 through June 2010. You may remember that after the 2008 election, then-President-elect Obama made a big deal out of making sure everybody knew he was keeping a Bush hold-over and isn’t Obama a big-man-bipartisan-gawd for doing that. Obama later moved Petraeus to Afghanistan for a year and then finally to CIA, where he got busted with the mistress and the intel and from which he ultimately resigned in November 2012, right after Obama’s re-election to a second term… And I mean… right after. Within days.

As it happens, CENTCOM isn’t our only facility in Tampa. It’s home to MacDill Air Force Base and, from what I’ve read, a hot-bed of very high-ranking military brass mixing socially with Tampa’s very rich, very often, in very swish parties at their very swish mansions. There is a very vibrant social scene in Tampa, evidently, with lots of brass & botox rubbing up against each other with much regularity.  Married brass.  And married botox. Married… not necessarily to each other…

…Enter the flying subpoenas… With implications of more mistresses, (WH?) leaked emails, and a WH “press plan” to manage it all…

What’s going on here?  This whole thing stinks.  I always thought Petraeus was pushed out for reasons unknown, but I can speculate.  I think this good man (flawed like the rest of us) might have been preparing to say something unflattering about the Obama Administration.  And this Jill Kelley chick?  Who else but the White House had motivation to leak those emails?  I haven’t really, truly stewed over this whole thing, but my radar is up.  I invite you to just scan the excerpted stories below (Exhibits A/B) with what I’ve posited in mind and leave your comments.  I haven’t got a solid idea what this all means, but I know it’s meaningful…


EXHIBIT A:

August 25, 2015
NYT: Inquiry Weighs Whether ISIS Analysis Was Distorted

The Pentagon’s inspector general is investigating allegations that military officials have skewed intelligence assessments about the United States-led campaign in Iraq against the Islamic State to provide a more optimistic account of progress, according to several officials familiar with the inquiry.

The investigation began after at least one civilian Defense Intelligence Agency analyst told the authorities that he had evidence that officials at United States Central Command — the military headquarters overseeing the American bombing campaign and other efforts against the Islamic State — were improperly reworking the conclusions of intelligence assessments prepared for policy makers, including President Obama, the government officials said.

Fuller details of the claims were not available, including when the assessments were said to have been altered and who at Central Command, or Centcom, the analyst said was responsible. The officials, speaking only on the condition of anonymity about classified matters, said that the recently opened investigation focused on whether military officials had changed the conclusions of draft intelligence assessments during a review process and then passed them on…

It is not clear how that review process changes when Defense Intelligence Agency analysts are assigned to work at Centcom — which has headquarters both in Tampa, Fla., and Qatar…

 


EXHIBIT B:

September 22, 2015
AP: Journalists Subpoenaed in Lawsuit Over Petraeus Scandal

Nine journalists were issued subpoenas Tuesday as part of a lawsuit over the Obama administration investigation that led to the resignation of CIA Director David Petraeus.

Those subpoenaed to provide depositions and documents include current and former reporters and editors at The Associated Press, The Washington Post, the Daily Beast and Fox News.

Jill and Scott Kelley of Tampa, Florida, sued the federal government in 2013, alleging that officials violated the U.S. Privacy Act by disclosing information about the couple. Jill Kelley was implicated in 2012 scandals involving Petraeus and Marine Gen. John R. Allen.

The AP was the first to report the name of Kelley, a (Tampa) socialite who hosted parties attended by high-ranking military brass.

Pentagon officials acknowledged in earlier depositions that they developed a “press plan” with members of an unspecified delegation from the White House in November 2012 to tell reporters that emails between Allen and Jill Kelley were “potentially inappropriate” and to suggest that the two had a sexual relationship.

Jill Kelley denied having an affair, and Allen was later exonerated by the Pentagon’s inspector general…

In 2012, Jill Kelley contacted a social acquaintance at the FBI to complain that an unknown person had sent her harassing emails. Her complaint triggered a criminal investigation that led agents to Paula Broadwell, Petraeus’ biographer. Broadwell had been having an affair with the former Army general, who was then director of the spy agency.

The FBI concluded that Broadwell had forwarded to her personal email account at least 1,500 messages about intelligence and military matters from Petraeus’ official CIA email account. Petraeus resigned Nov. 9, 2012, and later pleaded guilty to one misdemeanor charge of mishandling classified information.

Jill Kelley’s name and some harassing emails were disclosed on Nov. 11, 2012, to reporters amid the sensational disclosures about Petraeus. Two days later, she was linked to Allen, then-commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan.


Like I said, if you can offer some clarity on this thread of a thought of mine, I’d love to see in comments (Be nice!). *Be sure you are clicked into this specific post and not just my blog-site generally, and to scroll all the way down to see the comments box.

Is the FBI Investigating Obama?

We can only hope so!  The FBI… Doing the job American journalists just won’t do!  From Accuracy in Media:

Is the FBI Investigating Obama?

Posted By Cliff Kincaid on June 22, 2011 @ 2:47 pm

In a front page story about a major FBI terrorism investigation, The Washington Post has reported that the targets include “Chicagoans who crossed paths with Obama when he was a young state senator and some who have been active in labor unions that supported his political rise.” The implication is that the trail could lead to the White House.

Read it here -> http://www.aim.org/aim-column/is-the-fbi-investigating-obama/