Official Raised Alarm About Deleted Clinton Emails

A former top official in the U.S. State Department testified that he raised concerns about deleted emails from Hillary Clinton’s personal email system.

Clinton set up and used a private email server for the majority of her time as secretary of state during the Obama administration. John Hackett served as deputy director and then director of the department’s Information Programs and Services from 2013-16, which handles document management for Freedom of Information Act requests among other things.

Hackett said he was concerned over news that the Clinton team had segregated and then deleted about 30,000 emails out of a larger batch set to be turned back over to the department, and what criteria the team had applied when deciding which emails to delete.

Hacket was answering the questions under deposition as part of a FOIA lawsuit still underway by conservative watchdog Judicial Watch.

 

Hackett:  I recall it wasn’t much of a conversation. I—I was—I mean, I have to say, it was emphatic to the Under Secretary of Management—and I didn’t speak in tones like that very often to him—you know, that we needed these—you know, the guidelines.

… …

Judicial Watch: Why did you feel so strongly that this was necessary, that they provide this information?

Hackett: Well, we heard that there were 50,000 or 60,000 emails, and that they had—"they" being the Secretary’s team—had culled out 30,000 of these. And which is—so we wanted to know what criteria they used. The standard from the National Archives is very strict. If there was—if there were mixed records, that would be considered a federal record. If it was mixed personal and mentioned a discussion, that would be—under the narrow National Archives rules, it would be considered a federal record.

Judicial Watch: And do you know if the emails that were returned by Secretary Clinton and her attorneys, if they followed that guideline to include an email that would include mixed information, personal and official?

Hackett: I don’t know.

The 30,000 deleted emails were a source of controversy throughout the 2016 campaign.

In another part of the deposition, Hackett said he also voiced concerns about how some of Clinton’s emails were handled in response to FOIA requests, adding he thought some bureaucrats used the wrong legal exemption to withhold or redact some information.

"I believe that some bureaus were convinced, or—and analysts were convinced, once it was explained to them, to redact something but use a B5 exemption [which applies to deliberative process and allows government officials to discuss policy without the discussions being made public, or attorney client privilege] versus a B1 [national security] exemption."

If any of the emails with a B5 "national security" exemption ended up in her personal email account, Clinton would have faced additional scrutiny for possibly mishandling classified information.

Hacket also said he became worried about how the state department was responding to FOIA requests after seeing a now-infamous photo of then-Secretary Clinton with a Blackberry phone device.

"In fact, I advised [a coworker] that we should stop giving No Record Located responses until we come to—kind of come, you know—find out what that BlackBerry meant, come to ground about what was known about the former Secretary’s e-mailing habits," he said.

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said that the testimony conflicts with claims that Clinton and other Democrat officials were unaware of any potential violations of federal record-keeping policies. He called Hacket’s testimony "disturbing," adding that federal prosecutors should consider further investigating Clinton’s actions.

"This disturbing testimony points to an Obama administration conspiracy to hide and destroy Hillary Clinton emails," Fitton said in a press release. "Even worse, the testimony suggests Clinton’s Benghazi emails were under-classified in order to protect Hillary Clinton (and mislead Congress). Attorney General Barr needs to prioritize reopening the Clinton email investigation."

The state department did not respond to requests for comment.

Disclosure: Judicial Watch is the counsel for the reporter of this article in a separate, unrelated open records lawsuit.

The post Official Raised Alarm About Deleted Clinton Emails appeared first on Washington Free Beacon.

via Washington Free Beacon

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://freebeacon.com

Hidden Costs of Energy Mandates

There is nothing environmentally conscientious about prematurely shutting down sound infrastructure that provides clean, low-cost, reliable electricity.

Unfortunately, that’s exactly what state renewable energy mandates, federal energy subsidies, and policies like the Green New Deal would do to accommodate politically preferred renewable energy technologies.

A new report from the Institute for Energy
Research
gives
Americans an idea of the cost of mandating a transition from our present electricity
suppliers, which are predominantly natural gas, coal, and nuclear power.

There is no perfect energy resource or technology—every option has trade-off—but, for 30 years, analysts have used a metric called levelized cost of electricity to form educated guesses about the relative merits of building and operating power generation from coal, nuclear, natural gas, hydro, wind, and solar power for 30 years.

For example, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, a new, unsubsidized wind farm would cost on average $56 per megawatt-hour, but a new combined-cycle natural gas plant would cost $46 per megawatt-hour created.

A megawatt-hour is equal to roughly the amount of energy used by 330 homes for an hour.

But even the levelized cost of electricity does not offer a
perfect apples-to-apples comparison.

The Institute for Energy Research’s study tries to get
closer to the truth by taking into account hidden costs associated with
different energy resources. The study found:   

  1. Existing power plants have a lower levelized cost of electricity than new ones of the same kind—which means it is generally cheaper to run a plant that’s already built than to build a new one.
  2. This seems obvious, but it shows why politicians should think twice about the ripple effect of mandates and regulations that force otherwise functional power plants to shut down early.
  3. Wind and solar impose hidden costs on other power plants. Existing reliable power plants have to remain available in case the wind stops blowing or the sun stops shining. These plants—usually coal, natural gas, or nuclear—have to throttle back, which is less efficient, to accommodate wind and solar but be ready to deliver when they can’t. This imposes a hidden cost, according to the Institute for Energy Research, of at least $21 extra per megawatt-hour for solar and $24 for wind.

The
study sheds some important light on policies state renewable energy mandates,
which force certain politically preferred energy onto the grid rather than what
may make more economic sense for customers.

Take California for example. Elsewhere in the country, 89 nuclear reactors have extended their operating licenses beyond 40 years because they can generate decades more of inexpensive energy long after recovering the costs of construction.

But thanks to California’s decision to require that 50% of its power come from renewables by 2030, its final nuclear plant, Diablo Canyon, must close as part of the state’s mission to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 80%.

This single plant produces 9% of all power generated in California, with no carbon dioxide or air pollutants, but it will be closed in 2024 to make room for more politically mandated renewable energy.  

Coal, wind, natural gas, solar, nuclear, and other energy technologies bring different things to the table to meet customer needs for electricity. But when politics overrides customer preferences, the economics get fuzzy and customers may be signing up for more (literally, in terms of price) than they bargained for.

The post Hidden Costs of Energy Mandates appeared first on The Daily Signal.

via The Daily Signal

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.dailysignal.com/

It’s Actually OK to Be Proud of the Military on Independence Day

Some
are hyperventilating over reports that this year’s annual Independence Day
celebration in Washington will feature remarks by President Donald Trump, military
flyovers, and stationary displays of Army equipment, including tanks. 

The
Washington Post highlighted
the increased costs of the event and expressed anxiety over how there was a
chance that tanks and other heavy equipment could damage the grounds surrounding
the National Mall.

Time magazine, referring to the celebration as “controversial,” said it “blurs the lines between politics and the military, and offers visuals reminiscent of Chinese or Russian events.” 

National
Public Radio described
its frantic search to find the true cost for the celebration and quoted Sen.
Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., saying, “There’s going to be a big price tag for this,
and the taxpayers will have to pick up the tab.” 

Sen. Tom Udall, D-N.M., echoing Van Hollen, speaking about the cost said, “We haven’t heard anything. It’s disturbing.”

But Fourth of July celebrations have been taking place on the National Mall for at least 38 years and have typically featured live performances by the Beach Boys, Jimmy Buffett, the National Symphony Orchestra, and other nationally known performers. They always feature world-class fireworks and a big parade.

So, why the sudden interest in the cost of the celebration?

Is adding a flyover—the same thing we do for big football games—and a stationary display of a handful of tanks—really grounds for extraordinary consternation and newfound frugality on the part of congressional leaders?

Do
we even remember the reason we celebrate Independence Day? It was the day our
nation declared its independence from Great Britain.

Would
the simple act of declaration have sufficed to achieve our freedom? Hardly. It
took a long and bloody eight-year war in order for America to gain its
independence. 

Subsequent
wars, such as the War of 1812, were fought to maintain that freedom and protect
the nation.

In
those wars, it was the American military and the men and women who served in
uniform that gave our Declaration of Independence actual meaning.

Now, it seems we have reached a point where some think Independence Day is only about barbecues, concerts, and fireworks, and that introducing elements like a military flyover or (gasp!) stationary displays of tanks somehow sullies the festivities and introduces an undesirable martial element.  

It
was the nation’s armed forces that actually won the independence and maintained
it at great cost over the past 240-odd years.

Others find fault with the president’s decision to make remarks at the celebration, citing potential problems with traffic, cost, and possible politicization of the holiday.

Yet those same people have never expressed concerns over the president’s traditional speaking role on Memorial Day at Arlington National Cemetery.

Indeed,
it’s altogether appropriate and fitting for the president of the United States to
address the nation on Independence Day, reminding us of the blessings of
liberty and the sacrifices made to achieve the freedom we all now enjoy.

The small town where I grew up in Illinois was near the Great Lakes Naval Training Center. Fifty years later, I can still remember the pride and awe I felt when the sailors and military marching bands from the base marched down Main Street at our Independence Day parade. 

That same spirit and appreciation for our military is no less appropriate in Washington today than it was in Lake Bluff, Illinois, then.

The post It’s Actually OK to Be Proud of the Military on Independence Day appeared first on The Daily Signal.

via The Daily Signal

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.dailysignal.com/

Cruz Calls on DHS to Make It Easier for Americans to Donate to Migrants at Border

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, is asking the Department of Homeland Security to accept donations from charities for migrants at the Southern border.

“I … urge you to establish and publicize a process for accepting donations from charitable organizations, faith-based organizations, and [nongovernmental organizations] to aid individuals in [U.S. Customs and Border Protection] custody,” the Republican senator wrote in a letter Monday to acting Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kevin McAleenan.

“Even with the additional supplemental emergency funding, I am confident that DHS and CBP can still use the generosity of the American people to help manage the humanitarian crisis on our border,” Cruz added, referring to the $4.6 billion aid package recently passed by Congress. 

Currently, there’s no system in place to allow Border Patrol stations to accept private donations.

“A Customs and Border Protection official told reporters … that officials were working with the agency’s Office of Chief Counsel to determine whether Border Patrol stations can legally accept donations,” NPR reported last week, not naming the official. 

When Texas state Rep. Terry Canales, a Democrat, asked Border Patrol how his constituents could help those affected at the border, he “received an email response saying, ‘We don’t accept donations,’” he told NPR. 

“It just befuddles me and I think it’s just heartbreaking to know that there’s so many people that want to help, and that help is being denied for no definable reasons that anybody’s been able to communicate,” Canales told CNN late last month.

In his letter to McAleenan, Cruz also wrote

Many Americans … want to provide more direct and tangible help—they want to donate basic items such as diapers and toothbrushes to children in CBP custody. This desire is laudable, and deeply rooted in our nation’s history. Americans have long banded together to form charities and faith-based organizations to aid those in need. But I understand that many of these organizations are currently having difficulties making donations because DHS and CBP currently lack procedures to accept their donations.

Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, said he agreed with Cruz in a tweet:

The Department of Homeland Security did not respond to The Daily Signal’s request for comment on Cruz’s letter in time for publication.

The post Cruz Calls on DHS to Make It Easier for Americans to Donate to Migrants at Border appeared first on The Daily Signal.

via The Daily Signal

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.dailysignal.com/

John Adams Wanted Independence Day Celebrated With ‘Devotion to God…Pomp and Parade…Guns, Bells, Bonfires’

A portion of John Adams July 3, 1776 letter to his wife, in which he discusses his vision for America’s Independence Day.
(CNSNews.com) – Americans declared their independence from Britain on July 2, 1776, a date that John Adams called "the most memorable epocha in the history of America.”

via CNS RSS Feed Navbar

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.cnsnews.com/

Court Blocks Another Trump Immigration Order; DHS-IG Finds ‘Dangerous Overcrowding and Prolonged Detention’

Overcrowding of families observed by DHS-OIG on June 10, 2019, at Border Patrol’s McAllen, TX, Station. (Source: OIG)
(CNSNews.com) – A federal court in Seattle on Tuesday delivered another setback to the Trump administration’s immigration control efforts.

via CNS RSS Feed Navbar

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.cnsnews.com/

The Left’s Endgame Is Not Chaos. It’s Worse.

On an episode of The Candace Owens Show that aired this past May, Owens had as her guest Dennis Prager.  While I agreed with most of the points made by both Ms. Owens and Mr. Prager, one item struck me as an example of superficial analysis.  They declared that the primary objective of the Left is “chaos.”  In an immediate sense, this seems true; the so-called “progressive left” does appear to be deliberately sowing chaos in America today.

However, I submit that the Left’s “chaos” is an intermediate objective, the means to an end.  They have a well defined endgame.  The Communist Bloc countries were a lot of things, but they were generally not chaotic.  They were highly regimented societies, and while they did not have the material standard of living or political freedoms enjoyed in the West, there were some agreeable aspects, as related by the wife of one Carlo Alcos in an online feature story on the Matador Network about her early childhood experiences growing up in East Germany:

It wasn’t all trying, though.  Everyone had a job, school lunches were free, after-school care was free, people were generally happy, necessities were extremely cheap, and there was more community spirit than there is nowadays.  In those times, there were no Joneses to keep up with.

Rigidly communist East Germany hardly sounded like “chaos.”  So what is the progressive left’s game in the Era of Trump? 

First, at present, leftists want to create a state of political cultural chaos in the U.S. for a specific reason.  They need chaos as a smokescreen to defend their current leaders — that is to say, Obama, Hillary & Co. — from prosecution.  Make no mistake: Obama, Hillary, and their cohorts committed some  serious crimes of an unprecedented nature for people at their level.  We executed Julius and Ethel Rosenberg for far less. Their degree of culpability is suggested in an October 2016 email from Hilary Clinton to then DNC Chair Donna Brazile, revealed by WikiLeaks, in which Hillary shrieked to the effect that ”if that f‑‑‑‑‑‑ b‑‑‑‑‑‑ wins, we’re all going to hang from nooses.  You better fix this s‑‑‑!”

Consider the metaphor of a dogfight between two fighter planes.  One is firmly camped on the six o’clock of the other, ready to deliver the deathblow.  The other, facing imminent destruction, engages in all manner of crazy maneuvers in order to prevent his adversary from achieving a firing solution.  That is what the Left is doing with all this “chaos.”  For if Trump gets enough political breathing space to lock on for the kill and hold them accountable, they are through.  Their whole program is derailed, and many principals will indeed wind up in jail.  

What is the agenda of the Left, if it is not simply chaos?

Leftists rationalize what they are doing as being in the service of what will ultimately be a Star Trek–like “United Earth,” a one-world community ruled by the bureaucrats of the U.N., where there will be no more war, all resources will be shared, all conflicts will be “managed,” and the “masses” will be doled out whatever the elites decree the latter “needs” in return for World Peace Forevermore.  In real day-to-day terms, this enables an unaccountable, parasitic globalist elite class to decide what is best for everybody.  Ultimately, the progressive left elites of the West are busy selling out their own countries in order to appease the other major actors on the world stage, especially China and political Islam, to get the latter to cooperate in this globalist fantasy.

In reality, China; political Islam; and the other major independent political actor, Russia, will merely pocket the concessions of the West and continue to pursue their particular interests, in traditional great power fashion, at the West’s expense.  The corrupt Western elites who have sold their souls for this paradigm don’t really care, as they fundamentally do not believe that what the West represents is worth fighting for.  In short, what these corrupt globalist Western elites are engaged in is a highly rationalized form of treason.  

There are many collateral policies to this overall goal.  Three prominent issues include:

Israel: In order to get political Islam on board the globalist train, the price the Islamists ask is to get rid of Israel.  This really won’t make the Islamists any more peaceful or cooperative; it will instead embolden them.  But traditionally anti-Semitic segments of Western elites are happy to rationalize the need to force Israel into a suicidal “peace deal” — or worse, if Israel balks, to satisfy the bloodlust of her immediate adversaries…in the service of “World Peace,” of course.

Gun control: Imagine the Yellow Vest movement in France with American-level private gun ownership.  Civilian gun-owners can’t hope to defeat a modern military intent on simply destroying them, but if the objective is control and enslavement, that complicates matters (just ask the governor of Oregon).  A bunch of corpses can’t create wealth for the parasite globalist elite class to feed on.  That is why the Left wants our guns so, so badly.

Abortion/LGBT: The Left offers unlimited sexual freedom as a substitute for political freedom.  

The Left holds out traditional sexual roles and mores as a form of “bondage,” of “restriction.”  Why was it called the “sexual revolution”?  When people are encouraged to indulge in much of this nonsense in the context of making a “political statement,” this is intended to make whoever is doing this to feel “free”…but the price of this “freedom” is to uncritically accept all of the other political positions of the Left.  That is why, for example, it is not acknowledged by the Left when President Trump appoints an openly gay ambassador to Germany; that concession to “sexual freedom” doesn’t “count” if someone on the wrong side of the political fence does it.  Sexual freedom, in what passes for public discourse in the mass media and academia today, is the monopoly of the Left.

Writ large, what the self-styled “progressive left” is selling amounts to a modern version of feudalism, in which a self-appointed elite, whose status is maintained by the promotion of a self-serving “progressive,” neo-Marxist dogma, is anointed to tell the rest of us peasants how we must live our lives, not unlike the Divine Right of Kings.  The Rest of Us will be compelled to create wealth for them, as they enjoy an opulent existence without earning it; the likes of Obama, Hillary, Macron, Merkel, etc., couldn’t produce something genuinely useful if their lives depended on it.  In their world, over-educated uselessness becomes a virtue, as they are simply “above” having to produce anything.  It certainly beats actual work.  

That is what the Left wants.  It isn’t chaos.  It is integration into global feudalism.  In the end, if they are “successful,” American society will be saddled with a permanent belligerent parasite immigrant class (brought about by “open borders”), a greatly reduced standard of living for most citizens, our Constitution made an irrelevant relic, Islamism unbound, and subservience to a China-dominated world.

On an episode of The Candace Owens Show that aired this past May, Owens had as her guest Dennis Prager.  While I agreed with most of the points made by both Ms. Owens and Mr. Prager, one item struck me as an example of superficial analysis.  They declared that the primary objective of the Left is “chaos.”  In an immediate sense, this seems true; the so-called “progressive left” does appear to be deliberately sowing chaos in America today.

However, I submit that the Left’s “chaos” is an intermediate objective, the means to an end.  They have a well defined endgame.  The Communist Bloc countries were a lot of things, but they were generally not chaotic.  They were highly regimented societies, and while they did not have the material standard of living or political freedoms enjoyed in the West, there were some agreeable aspects, as related by the wife of one Carlo Alcos in an online feature story on the Matador Network about her early childhood experiences growing up in East Germany:

It wasn’t all trying, though.  Everyone had a job, school lunches were free, after-school care was free, people were generally happy, necessities were extremely cheap, and there was more community spirit than there is nowadays.  In those times, there were no Joneses to keep up with.

Rigidly communist East Germany hardly sounded like “chaos.”  So what is the progressive left’s game in the Era of Trump? 

First, at present, leftists want to create a state of political cultural chaos in the U.S. for a specific reason.  They need chaos as a smokescreen to defend their current leaders — that is to say, Obama, Hillary & Co. — from prosecution.  Make no mistake: Obama, Hillary, and their cohorts committed some  serious crimes of an unprecedented nature for people at their level.  We executed Julius and Ethel Rosenberg for far less. Their degree of culpability is suggested in an October 2016 email from Hilary Clinton to then DNC Chair Donna Brazile, revealed by WikiLeaks, in which Hillary shrieked to the effect that ”if that f‑‑‑‑‑‑ b‑‑‑‑‑‑ wins, we’re all going to hang from nooses.  You better fix this s‑‑‑!”

Consider the metaphor of a dogfight between two fighter planes.  One is firmly camped on the six o’clock of the other, ready to deliver the deathblow.  The other, facing imminent destruction, engages in all manner of crazy maneuvers in order to prevent his adversary from achieving a firing solution.  That is what the Left is doing with all this “chaos.”  For if Trump gets enough political breathing space to lock on for the kill and hold them accountable, they are through.  Their whole program is derailed, and many principals will indeed wind up in jail.  

What is the agenda of the Left, if it is not simply chaos?

Leftists rationalize what they are doing as being in the service of what will ultimately be a Star Trek–like “United Earth,” a one-world community ruled by the bureaucrats of the U.N., where there will be no more war, all resources will be shared, all conflicts will be “managed,” and the “masses” will be doled out whatever the elites decree the latter “needs” in return for World Peace Forevermore.  In real day-to-day terms, this enables an unaccountable, parasitic globalist elite class to decide what is best for everybody.  Ultimately, the progressive left elites of the West are busy selling out their own countries in order to appease the other major actors on the world stage, especially China and political Islam, to get the latter to cooperate in this globalist fantasy.

In reality, China; political Islam; and the other major independent political actor, Russia, will merely pocket the concessions of the West and continue to pursue their particular interests, in traditional great power fashion, at the West’s expense.  The corrupt Western elites who have sold their souls for this paradigm don’t really care, as they fundamentally do not believe that what the West represents is worth fighting for.  In short, what these corrupt globalist Western elites are engaged in is a highly rationalized form of treason.  

There are many collateral policies to this overall goal.  Three prominent issues include:

Israel: In order to get political Islam on board the globalist train, the price the Islamists ask is to get rid of Israel.  This really won’t make the Islamists any more peaceful or cooperative; it will instead embolden them.  But traditionally anti-Semitic segments of Western elites are happy to rationalize the need to force Israel into a suicidal “peace deal” — or worse, if Israel balks, to satisfy the bloodlust of her immediate adversaries…in the service of “World Peace,” of course.

Gun control: Imagine the Yellow Vest movement in France with American-level private gun ownership.  Civilian gun-owners can’t hope to defeat a modern military intent on simply destroying them, but if the objective is control and enslavement, that complicates matters (just ask the governor of Oregon).  A bunch of corpses can’t create wealth for the parasite globalist elite class to feed on.  That is why the Left wants our guns so, so badly.

Abortion/LGBT: The Left offers unlimited sexual freedom as a substitute for political freedom.  

The Left holds out traditional sexual roles and mores as a form of “bondage,” of “restriction.”  Why was it called the “sexual revolution”?  When people are encouraged to indulge in much of this nonsense in the context of making a “political statement,” this is intended to make whoever is doing this to feel “free”…but the price of this “freedom” is to uncritically accept all of the other political positions of the Left.  That is why, for example, it is not acknowledged by the Left when President Trump appoints an openly gay ambassador to Germany; that concession to “sexual freedom” doesn’t “count” if someone on the wrong side of the political fence does it.  Sexual freedom, in what passes for public discourse in the mass media and academia today, is the monopoly of the Left.

Writ large, what the self-styled “progressive left” is selling amounts to a modern version of feudalism, in which a self-appointed elite, whose status is maintained by the promotion of a self-serving “progressive,” neo-Marxist dogma, is anointed to tell the rest of us peasants how we must live our lives, not unlike the Divine Right of Kings.  The Rest of Us will be compelled to create wealth for them, as they enjoy an opulent existence without earning it; the likes of Obama, Hillary, Macron, Merkel, etc., couldn’t produce something genuinely useful if their lives depended on it.  In their world, over-educated uselessness becomes a virtue, as they are simply “above” having to produce anything.  It certainly beats actual work.  

That is what the Left wants.  It isn’t chaos.  It is integration into global feudalism.  In the end, if they are “successful,” American society will be saddled with a permanent belligerent parasite immigrant class (brought about by “open borders”), a greatly reduced standard of living for most citizens, our Constitution made an irrelevant relic, Islamism unbound, and subservience to a China-dominated world.

via American Thinker

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.americanthinker.com/