Does “C” lead to espionage or just more pay-to-play?

Yesterday afternoon, FBI Director, James Comey, sent a letter to key members of Congress informing them that the Hillary Clinton email investigation is being reopened.  The media, in the tank for Hillary, went berserk, the Democrats went berserk, and Hillary Clinton demanded Comey provide more information.  With the election 10 days away, this revelation does have the obvious ability to impact the election, so of course, the political optics should concern everyone and assuredly they concerned everyone on the Left and in the media.

Speculation runs rife, but so far, the media is reporting that new emails came to the FBI’s notice through its investigation of perv, Anthony Weiner’s sexting with a minor investigation.   Media reports assert that electronic devices belonging to both Weiner and his wife, Huma Abedin, estranged wife of perv Weiner were subpoenaed in this investigation.

As you read news reports, bits and pieces show up that deviate slightly from the predominant “narrative”.  Bits like this, though, shed some alarming light:

“FBI interview notes indicate that Abedin, a Pakistani-American Muslim whose family has deep ties to Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and the radical Muslim Brotherhood, was granted Top Secret security clearance for the first time in 2009, when Clinton named her deputy chief of staff for operations. Abedin said she “did not remember” being read into any Special Access Programs (SAPs) or compartments.” (my emphasis)

If Clinton wins the presidency next month, she is expected to tap Abedin as her chief of staff, a position that would give her the power to run White House operations – including personnel security and visitor access. The position does not require Senate confirmation. (my emphasis)

the article continues:

“Another guard assigned to Clinton’s residence in Chappaqua, N.Y., recalled in a February FBI interview that new security procedures for handling delivery of the diplomatic pouch and receiving via fax the highly classified Presidential Daily Brief (PDB) had been “established by Abedin.” The witness added that Abedin controlled the operations of a secure room known as a SCIF located on the third floor of the residence.” (my emphasis)

then this:

The FBI pointed out that “the only person at DoS (Department of State) to receive an email account on the (clintonemail.com) domain was Abedin.”

In other words, Abedin, whose email account was huma@clintonemail.com, was the only State Department aide whose emails were hosted by the private Clinton server she claimed she didn’t know existed until she heard about it in the news.” (my emphasis)

Read more: Family Security Mattershttp://74.217.243.141/publications/detail/fbi-notes-reveal-security-concerns-over-huma-abedin#ixzz4OUJqKwKS
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution

One can only wonder what “information” would prod Comey to act, since he already listed an array of felonies, from mishandling classified information to obstruction of justice, in his July “nothing criminal” statement and dismissed them as “extremely careless”.  So, knowing that Comey did not feel compelled to pursue those crimes, it stands to reason to wonder what might have motivated him to act now, especially this close to the election.

The media is yammering about pay-to-play and more classified information, but I keep thinking about that charge list Comey read off in July and then dismissed.  Perhaps, it was something so serious, that even compromised-his-integrity  Comey could not bring himself to ignore it as just, “extremely careless”… like, maybe espionage  (pure speculation on my part, but hey, I feel no remorse).

Considering Abedin admitted she doesn’t remember ever being read into any SAPs, yet had access and possibly even control over the Secretary of State’s classified information within the State Department, begs the question:

Did she ever undergo a formal security background check to ascertain she is not a security risk???

Or was that waived by Hillary Clinton?  This same question should be asked of President Obama and his White House staff.  It should also be asked, looking back, to President Bush and President Clinton too.  I remember, during the Clinton administration, people in the national security community raised serious alarms about the lack of proper security vetting, which allowed unvetted people close access to the Clinton White House.

And if my speculation turns out to have any veracity, it should prod both sides, especially grand-stander, John McCain, to seriously review how elected officials in Washington vet their staffs. I’ve been wondering since 2013 why on earth McCain hired disgraced ISW analyst, Elizabeth O’Bagy, after she was fired by the Institute for the Study of War. And of course, did she ever undergo a security background check?

How Abedin, with her connection to the Muslim Brotherhood, ever passed a security background check, boggles the mind, but the same goes for O’Bagy, who is still a staffer for John McCain.

In 1980, I was a lowly private in the US Army. I arrived at the 21st Replacement in Frankfurt, Germany, because the lower ranks did not have direct assignments in Germany. I was being given my assignment as an Army journalist/information specialist, but first I was asked some questions, because the assignment was to Berlin.  The first question was, “Do you know anyone in the Soviet Union or Eastern bloc countries?” I answered honestly, that I had a pen pal in Czechoslovakia, as a teenager.

That answer precluded me from being assigned to Berlin.  I “knew” someone in a communist country, yet here we are engaged in war against radical Islamists and people with direct ties to organizations funding radical Islamists are working for high-level US officials and have access to highly classified US intelligence information.  Abedin has direct ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and O’Bagy was working for the Syrian Emergency Task Force, as the political director and that group had ties to Palestinian radicals (Muslim Brotherhood).    Here’s a bit from a Daniel Greenfield 2013 report:

“A few days ago, the Wall Street Journal ran a high profile article from one Elizabeth O’Bagy arguing that the majority of the Syrian rebels were actually moderates.

Senator McCain mentioned Elizabeth O’Bagy’s op-ed during the Senate hearings, when he wasn’t playing poker, and tweeted it. That should come as no surprise, considering that O’Bagy is credited with arranging McCain’sinfamous photo op with the Syrian rebel leadership.

The Wall Street Journal lists O’Bagy’s role as the Institute for the Study of War. It leaves out the fact that she is the political director for the Syrian Emergency Task Force making her an activist.

O’Bagy doesn’t matter much. She’s a friendly Western face plastered over a foreign organization. Of more interest is Mouaz Moustafa, the smiling man in the Keffiyah on the far right of McCain in this photo. (my emphasis)

Mouaz Moustafa is a Palestinian Arab and the Executive Director of the Syrian Emergency Task Force which arranged for McCain’s visit.

Senator McCain called Moustafa a “patriot”, but it’s not clear which country he’s a patriot of, since it’s not Mouaz Moustafa’s first time around on the regime change bus tour.”

http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/203199/meet-syrian-islamist-organization-controlling-daniel-greenfield

Now, I must disagree with Greenfield, because I think these “oh so innocent American women, with Islamic radical ties“, matter a great deal.  I think they might matter more than the men, like Moustafa, because these women have ingratiated themselves with top US politicians and have complete access to highly classified information, but also a great deal of influence over these politicians.

Things have changed a great deal, but it sure seems like national security protocols now center around partisan domestic politics and the vagaries of the egos of entrenched Washington insiders, like McCain and Clinton, whom operate above the rules of lesser mortals, than they do about the actual national security of the United States of America.

3 Comments

Filed under Foreign Policy, General Interest, Hillary's Email Scandal, Politics

3 responses to “Does “C” lead to espionage or just more pay-to-play?

  1. lolly52

    Typical of DC. You have a pen pal and cannot pass. Anyone “in the DC club” is auto-cleared. I hope this email blows up the entire place

  2. Well, that was 1980 and we were still in a Cold War mentality, but even now many people in the military are disgusted that she could jeopardize national security on this scale and not be held accountable in any way. Even if you mishandle classified information, accidentally, with no malice intent, the military still takes that seriously and demands accountability. Most accidents are usually preventable and ones involving how you personally handled sensitive information entrusted to you – are 99.9% preventable. You had control to avoid it happening. I’d go with 100%preventable, but I’m sure there’s some far-fetched hypothetical to make a case for an unpreventable mishandling case. I am not a criminal defense attorney, so I will concede that some of them could conjure up that sort of scenario.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s