Hillary Clinton leaked intel to hurt Israeli war plans, says watchdog attorney

Hillary Clinton leaked intel to hurt Israeli war plans, says watchdog attorney
March 4, 2015 9:54 PM MST

The computer server that sent and received Hillary Clinton's emails when she was secretary of state was traced back to an Internet service registered to her family's home in Chappaqua.
Play
The computer server that sent and received Hillary Clinton's emails when she was secretary of state was traced back to an Internet service registered to her family's home in Chappaqua.
on.aol.com

The media feeding frenzy over the alleged unlawful use by Hillary Clinton of a non-government email system is having an impact on other allegations against the presidential wannabe. On Tuesday, a former Department of Justice prosecuting attorney said that he believes then-Secretary of State Clinton -- probably using her unofficial and illegal email system -- was complicit in the leaking of classified intelligence regarding military operation plans formulated by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) to destroy Iran's nuclear weapons program.
Perhaps more troubling than the email scandal, there are allegations that Hillary Clinton leaked information on Israeli war plans to her leftist friends at the New York Times.
Getty Images/Alex Wong

In a Washington Post front page news story on March 2, 2015, reporter Anne Gearan intimated that the likely reason for the release of Israel's plans to a New York Times reporter was intended to hurt the Israeli's war plans, since President Barack Obama and his staff -- including his top advisor Valerie Jarrett, herself born in Iran -- believed Israel was willing and had the technical and strategic expertise to launch a preemptive sneak attack on Iran in order to eliminate their nuclear threat.

Ms. Gearan wrote: "Hillary Rodham Clinton used a private e-mail account for her official government business when she was secretary of state and did not routinely preserve and turn over those e-mails for government records collection, the State Department said Monday." She also wrote: "It was not clear why Clinton, a potential 2016 presidential candidate, created the private account. But the practice appears to bolster long-standing criticism that Clinton and her husband, former president Bill Clinton,  have not been transparent."

According to documents obtained by Larry Klayman, the top executive at the nonpartisan Freedom Watch, as a result of his Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit, Secretary Clinton and her closest staff members were the likely sources of the leaks to New York Times reporter David Sanger. Klayman also said the FOIA documents show that those leaks were coordinated with the Obama White House's national security team, which included Susan "Benghazi" Rice and Iranian-born Valerie Jarrett.

Sanger, the New York Times's chief Washington correspondent, has complained that the Obama administration is the "most closed, control-freak administration" he's ever covered. This despite Obama and his minions telling the American people that they are the most transparent White House in modern history. Sanger claims that a memo was sent out by the White House chief of staff to White House employees and the intelligence agencies that ordered them to freeze and retain any email, and presumably phone logs, of communications with him.

Unfortunately, the U.S. Department of State, now under the leadership of John Kerry, continues to stonewall the release of many other documents, but Freedom Watch is currently arguing its case before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to force further release. Oral arguments are expected to occur in early April (case no. 14-5174).

On Tuesday, Klayman issued a biting statement regarding the deteriorating Israeli-American relations thanks to Barack Obama and the Democrats this week: "It seems that President Obama and would-be president Hillary Clinton have done much to try to put a chink in the side of both Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Israel so they could reach an under-the-table nuclear deal with Iran. This would include disclosing Israeli war plans and cyberwarfare sources and methods to prevent a preemptory strike. Both the President and former Secretary of State Clinton should be forced to legally come clean about his serious breach of national security. While whistleblowers like Edward Snowden are held out to dry and prosecuted, higher ups are left alone to release classified national security information when it suits their political purposes."

Stop Iran from getting nuclear bombs

Like · 

It's about stopping obama from appeasing terrorist iran

Jonathan Tobin, Commentary mag. online

...the crisis in U.S.-Israel relations has nothing to do with protocol or a speech many in this country perceive as having more to do with Netanyahu’s efforts to win reelection later this month. The crisis is the result of more than six years of administration efforts to distance itself from Israel on both the Palestinian issue as well as the Iran nuclear threat. By choosing to discard his 2012 campaign promises about eliminating Iran’s nuclear program and instead embracing a diplomatic effort aimed at creating détente with the Islamist regime, it is President Obama who precipitated the argument, not Netanyahu.

The question before Congress is, after all, not about U.S.-Israel relations. Rather, it is whether an administration that has already taken a step toward acquiescing to a nuclear Iran can, Power’s promises notwithstanding, take another even bigger one with the current negotiations. If, as reports indicate, the U.S. has not only already agreed to let Iran keep several thousand centrifuges but also agreed to a ten-year sunset clause that would give Tehran the ability to do as it likes after the deal expires, then what is under consideration is a fundamental re-ordering of U.S. security policy.

Allowing Iran to, in President Obama’s words, “get right with the world,” might involve the Islamist regime in efforts to fight ISIS. But it will also means that its efforts to achieve regional hegemony—a goal that the victories of its Syrian ally and the strength of Hezbollah and Hamas make possible—will also be strengthened and given the imprimatur of the United States.

Seen in that light, it is not possible to ignore Netanyahu’s warnings as mere political gamesmanship or a foolish game of one-upmanship being blamed by the two governments.

It no longer matters whether Netanyahu blundered when he stumbled into the trap Obama seems to have set for him when the speech was announced. Democrats who treat his speech and the underlying issues as a test of party loyalty are making a fundamental mistake. So, too, are any pro-Israel or Jewish groups that are trying to keep the prime minister at arm’s length right now.

After years of balancing his animus for Netanyahu against the political necessity of not undermining the U.S.-Israel alliance, Obama has finally and completely gone off the tracks with a potential Iran deal that could endanger the security of both countries. In a sense, it would be better for Israel if Netanyahu were not the face of opposition to this dangerous policy rather than Obama critics like Democratic Senator Robert Menendez. But with a dangerous deal that the president has no intention of submitting to Congress for approval perhaps only weeks away, there is no excuse for any supporter of Israel, no matter how devoted to their party, to stay away from the speech or to ignore its content.

Obama started this argument with Israel when he took office. But Congress has an obligation to act as a check on a policy that ought to alarm anyone who cares about peace in the Middle East or the survival of Israel. If Netanyahu’s speech can help focus attention back on that necessity, then it will be worth the grief it has caused

16000 Aipac volunteers to lobby vs Obama

Aipac's 16000 delegates to lobby Congress  Tuesday and OPPOSED to  Obama's Iran giveaway

 When thousands of activists take to the Hill on Tuesday, they’ll be pushing several bills that target Tehran’s nuclear program, and contradict Obama’s positions

By Rebecca Shimoni Stoil March 2, 2015, 9:44 am 18

WASHINGTON — In the past, details of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee’s lobbying agenda for the last day of its policy conference was worth its weight in gold. Reporters bent over backward to glean nuggets of information, before thousands of AIPAC activists hit Capitol Hill, on what exactly it was that they would ask of their representatives.

But this year, with less than a month left before a deadline to reach a framework for a comprehensive deal between Iran and six world powers, AIPAC’s citizen lobbyists – and anybody else who happened to be listening – got the message on jumbotron screens in a plenary hall packed to the gills with some 16,000 people. And it wasn’t only on the screen – it was accessible together with draft bills and supporting documents on AIPAC’s conference application.

For the thousands of attendees expected to visit Congressional offices on Tuesday, hours after Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s divisive speech before Congress, AIPAC’s policy “asks” are going to be a tough haul. With presidential vetoes promised on two of the three main agenda items, the group’s supporters will have to wrangle veto-busting 67-vote supermajorities in the Senate if they ever want the bills they are lobbying for to be signed into law.

AIPAC’s lobbying policy has three prongs, according to the giant screen and AIPAC’s legislative head honchos, who presented it onstage: support diplomacy by increasing pressure, insist on a good agreement, and review any final deal. The missing noun in all three points was, of course, Iran.

In previous years, Iran has always been part of the lobbying package, but it was far from the sole focus. In 2014, for instance, a key ask was the US-Israel Strategic Partnership Act, which Congress eventually approved. The second main element that year was the Nuclear-Free Iran Act, represented this year through the first prong of the all-Iran strategy.

That legislation, sponsored by senators Mark Kirk (R-IL) and Robert Menendez (D-NJ), who will address the conference later this week, would impose strong additional sanctions on Tehran should nuclear talks fall through.

That bill was officially filed in January, but Senate Democrats promised to hold off on a final vote until March 24. The Obama administration staunchly opposes the bill, which proposes heavy sanctions if no comprehensive nuclear agreement with Iran is reached by the current, twice-extended, July 1 deadline. Proponents say the legislation will help pressure Iran to reach an agreement, but opponents say it will give it fodder to argue that the US has been negotiating in bad faith.

Netanyahu may address Congress in support of the bill on Tuesday, but already in January, US President Barack Obama used precious talking time during his State of the Union speech to guarantee he’d to veto it. Thus, AIPAC activists know that they must seek a veto-proof supermajority in order to keep the bill viable.

The lobbying strategy calls on supporters to stress that the bill does not violate the terms of the interim deal with Iran known as the Joint Plan of Action, in which Washington committed to not impose any new sanctions during talks.

The goal for lobbying day is to promote the Congressional review bill sponsored by senators Bob Corker (R-TN) and Menendez. The bill, which was long-anticipated and finally submitted Friday, would establish a process whereby the Congress will be able to review any final deal with Iran. Obama has promised to veto that bill as well, but it may prove to be an easier sell en route to a veto-proof majority. Unlike the first bill, this legislation does not seek to impose or threaten any additional sanctions. Rather, Corker has argued, it merely gives Congress the same democratic power that the Iranian Majlis – the parliament – possesses to either approve or reject any nuclear deal.

Although the AIPAC rank and file will ask their representatives to reject a “bad” deal with Iran, activists are still a little fuzzy as to what constitutes a “bad” or even a “good” deal. Some of the parameters are set out in a draft House letter to Obama that AIPAC members will circulate, and on which they will solicit signatures.

“A final comprehensive nuclear agreement must constrain Iran’s nuclear infrastructure so that Iran has no pathway to a bomb, and that agreement must be longlasting,” the letter read. It also called on negotiators to “obtain maximum commitments to transparency by Iran,” and argued that “any inspection and verification regime must allow for short notice access to suspect locations, and verifiable constraints on Iran’s nuclear program must last for decades.”

The last assertion put the letter at odds with Obama administration policy, which seems to support a limited framework for a sunset clause on the bill. Such clauses stipulate that all of the terms of the comprehensive deal expire at a certain point, after which Iran faces no additional limitations on its nuclear project, beyond those that apply to all nuclear nations.

Obama stopped israel

Report today from World Jewish Digest of Obama's treachery vs israel
Now the truth comes out.

A report out of Kuwait claims that President Obama thwarted an Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear facilities in 2014 after he threatened to shoot down Israeli jets.

The Israeli leadership had reportedly decided to strike Iran after they learned that the United States and Tehran had been negotiating in secret about that country's nuclear program. After four days of intense deliberation, Israel decided to attack.

But a "unnamed Israeli minister who has good ties with the US administration" told the White House of Israel's plans. Obama then made the threat, forcing Israel to back down.


According to the report, “Netanyahu and his commanders agreed after four nights of deliberations to task the Israeli army's chief of staff, Benny Gantz, to prepare a qualitative operation against Iran's nuclear program. In addition, Netanyahu and his ministers decided to do whatever they could do to thwart a possible agreement between Iran and the White House because such an agreement is, allegedly, a threat to Israel's security.”

The sources added that Gantz and his commanders prepared the requested plan and that Israeli fighter jets trained for several weeks in order to make sure the plans would work successfully. Israeli fighter jets reportedly even carried out experimental flights in Iran's airspace after they managed to break through radars.

The report appeared in the Kuwaiti newspaper Al Jarida and was picked up by Bethlehem-based Ma'an news agency and published in English by Arutz Sheva.

cowardice of jewish leadership

So many Jewish organizations (http://www.njdc.org/media/entry/boteach022815) are lining up, NOT to condemn Obama/Rice/ etc who are engineering a deal with GENOCIDAL intended Iran to give them nuclear weapons capability and a great opportunity for another HOLOCAUST, but to condemn Rabbi Boteach who dared to place an ad attacking Susan Rice, who has heavy investments in iran, called Netanyahu's visit destructive, lied to our faces on 5 national Sunday shows erroneously claiming Al quida was not responsible for Benghazi.

The only issue i had with the ad is he should he directed at Obama, who is doing all he can to promote Iran's hegemony over the Middle East and advance jihad in general, letting Isis flourish etc. Obama lies through his teeth about everything, especially about how his dialogue with Iran is helping (Wash Post gave it 3 Pinocchios) , how 99.9%of Muslims want what we want (27% British Moslems supported the Paris attacks), how he is fighting isis (6 pathetic sorties a day vs 800 a day by Bush vs Hussein). Jewish organizations are laying down like lambs for this nightmare, except for ZOA. Aipac today had Obama's former nat. sec. head on main panel and tomorrow its Rice and Samantha Powers, who once called for US military to drive Israel out of west bank. Isis is now in West bank, Sinai, Gaza, Libya, Syria, iraq and iran will get bombs, all under Obama's leadership and Jews are attacking other Jews, rather than Obama. This a deep suicidal sickness pervading Jewish organizations who can't see the Haman we have in the White House.