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.

This. Is. Stunning.

UPDATE #2 SAT 06/06/2015 8:15am:  As expected none of the eunuch-palace-scribes at either the White House or State Department briefings asked about Gertz’s findings.  I even checked to see if D.O.D./Pentagon was having a briefing or had had one recently and they just linked to State.  Gosh, I miss journalism.

UPDATE #1 FRI 06/05/2015 8:30am:  I wonder if  The New York Times was “asked” to write the inane Editorial I commented & blogged on just the other day because The White House knew this piece from Gertz was coming? Things that make you go ‘hmm’. 


This is quite possibly the worst thing ever written about any American president ever by quite possibly the best reporter on intelligence matters in America, Bill Gertz (And that’s not just my opinion.  Mr. Gertz is widely regarded as the “go-to” guy for his razor-sharp mind and deep & impeccable sources.  The only other reporter I would put anywhere near him is Catherine Herridge of Fox News.)

I know I sound hyperbolic, but dear GodGertz is basically reporting that our President has given aid & comfort to the enemy.  And not just any enemy.  This enemy ties each of a woman’s arms and legs to four cars then speeds off (yeah…), rapes an 8 year old girl in front of her family then makes each watch while the others get beheaded one by one, crucifies 3 year old boys, drops gays off rooftops, plays soccer with decapitated heads… burns a caged man alive… I mean… even members of the administration have said publicly they’ve never seen such depravity.

This charge about Obama has been made made many, many, many times before, but never from a source as universally respected as Gertz.  The only thing wrong with it is the White House Press Corps, most prominently ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, NPR, The New York Times, The Washington Post, will never, ever, ever touch it because Gertz now writes for a “right-wing” source (He published this in The Washington Times, but he also writes for The Washington Free Beacon, a newer paper without the sort of strange background as the WT).  It might possibly come up at a State Department briefing.  Possibly even a Pentagon briefing.  If it does, I’ll update.)

Damn.

I’m still sort of thunderstruck so I’ll just stop here and invite you to read the American Thinker’s take on it, below.


Via The American Thinker – Gertz Expose: Pentagon docs show Obama supports Muslim Brotherhood
June 5, 2015
By James Lewis

Bill Gertz, top Pentagon reporter for the Washington Times has just reported that “Obama secretly backed Muslim Brotherhood.”  The Brotherhood is literally a fascist Muslim radical group from the Nazi period.

Writes Gertz:
President Obama and his administration continue to support the global Islamist militant group known the Muslim Brotherhood. A White House strategy document regards the group as a moderate alternative to more violent Islamist groups like al Qaeda and the Islamic State.” (Aka ISIS).

The policy of backing the Muslim Brotherhood is outlined in a secret directive called Presidential Study Directive-11[.] … The directive was produced in 2011[.] …

Efforts to force the administration to release the directive or portions of it under the Freedom of Information Act have been unsuccessful. …

The directive outlines why the administration has chosen the Muslim Brotherhood, which last year was labeled a terrorist organization by the governments of Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates as a key vehicle of U.S. backing for so-called political reform in the Middle East. …

The UAE government also has labeled two U.S. affiliates of the Muslim Brotherhood, the Council on American-Islamic Relations and the Muslim American Society, as terrorist support groups. Both groups denied the UAE claims. Egypt is considering imposing a death sentence on Mohamed Morsi, the Muslim Brotherhood-backed former president who was ousted in military coup in July 2013.

Critics of the administration’s strategy say the Brotherhood masks its goals and objectives despite advocating an extremist ideology similar to those espoused by al Qaeda and the Islamic State, but with less violence. The group’s motto includes the phrase “jihad is our way.” Jihad means holy war and is the Islamist battle cry.

Counterterrorism analyst Patrick Poole said the Brotherhood in recent weeks has stepped up its use of violent attacks in Egypt.

The Muslim Brotherhood is called the “Ikhwan” in Arabic, meaning “brotherhood.”  (Like German “ich” and “won.”)  It took that name in 1928, when fascist and Nazi “brotherhoods” were spreading all over Europe.

From the start, the Ikhwan actively collaborated with Hitler through the mufti of Jerusalem.  One of their slogans is “All we want is to die in the way of Allah” – which means killing as many infidels as you can when you die.  This is the theological basis for suicide-bombing.  Today, there is no daylight between the Ikhwan and ISIS.

In 1981, an Ikhwan front group assassinated Pres. Anwar Sadat, the most important Arab peacemaker with Israel.

The Ikhwan employs Malik Obama, the president’s half-brother, as a big money man.

The Ikhwan created Hamas – the terrorist group that uses children as human shields to protect rocket launchers in Gaza.

The Ikhwan helped neo-Ottoman fascist Erdoğan to take over Turkey.

The Ikhwan is almost certainly behind ISIS, together with Turkey and Qatar.

In 2011, the Ikhwan overthrew Egypt’s President Hosni Mubarak – who upheld the Egypt-Israel peace treaty for four decades – in close collusion with Obama, Code Pink, and Bill Ayers.  The Western media actually reported that  Code Pink and Bill Ayers were protesting Hosni Mubarak in the weeks before Mubarak was overthrown.  Today, millions of Egyptians believe that Obama supports their mortal enemy, the Ikhwan.

The Ikhwan is now engaged in a monumental civil war against President El Sisi, whose court just condemned its leader to death.  Their leaders who are not in jail have fled to Qatar, Turkey, and Gaza, all part of the Ikhwan network.

The Ikhwan controls American front groups like CAIR, which buys up American politicians by the truckload, especially on the left.

Four-star admiral James Lyons (USN, Ret.) has gone public with the charge that the Ikhwan has deeply penetrated U.S. intelligence.  That is why Obama can’t even say the words “Muslim war on America.”  That is why our defense has been so feeble and cringing.

Hillary Clinton’s closest personal aide as SecState was Huma Abedin – an Ikhwan insider.  Abedin was one of the few people who had access to Hillary’s illegal personal e-mail account on the night of Benghazi.  Nothing has changed – Abedin is still at the top of the Hillary campaign.  Probably for the first time in U.S. history, presidential candidate Hillary has stonewalled any media questions, period.

Major Ikhwan money flows have been reported going to the Clintons, the Carters, and Obama.  Ikhwan penetration of American society and the U.S. government gives all the appearance of a political quid pro quo – with our survival at stake.

Bill Gertz’s Pentagon documents now prove the Ikhwan connection directly.  The liberal media will try to stifle the facts, as always.

Maybe this time they will fail.

==end==

Annie Prediction Comes True in ONE DAY

 Sometimes I’m just that good…

Early yesterday morning I predicted that Herman Cain would score a big cash bonanza from people being royally p*ssed off that he was being so grievously slimed.  Even MSNBC commies like Herman, because he inspires genuine affection. Not Bubba affection.  Genuine affection.  But here’s where the Bubba-lovers figured wrong – and – I think, Mitt Romney/Karl Rove figured wrong when they planted this story (That’s just my theory).  This ain’t 1996 anymore.  We’ve got internet, Fox, talk radio… We didn’t have that then.  Not broadly, anyway.  It was all in it’s infancy.  And the electorate is far more sophisticated than it was then about the occasional uptight, humorless b*tch trying to get a cash payday over nothing, – because she heard about Anita Hill from her Flashdance-at-the-gym BFF’s – which is what it appears this case was.  In short –

THEY CAN’T LIE TO US ANYMORE AND GET AWAY WITH IT… So…

To quote Charlie Sheen:  WINNING!

Not only was I right, I was RECORD-BREAKING right.  They had their biggest ever day of on-line fundraising, with donations coming in from people righteously clicking in their $upport!

From The Washingon TImes,  under the headline of:

Cain Campaign has Biggest Online Fundraising Day

‘…The campaign raised $250,000 in online donatinos in one day. However, one Cain campaign source confirmed to me that the fundraising for Monday is well over $300,000.’

Keep it up MSNBC… It only helps the cause!