James Comey’s decision on Hillary Clinton: Welcome to Animal Farm!

Hillary Clinton Snapchat email joke

Americans everywhere should do themselves a favor and buy George Orwell’s “Animal Farm” today because FBI Director James Comey made clear this afternoon that we are living in it: “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”

There really is no way to describe the Twilight Zone-like press conference Mr. Comey gave today regarding Hillary Clinton’s private email server. The man personally and professionally destroyed the former secretary of state for nearly 15 minutes and then concluded with, “no reasonable prosecutor” would seek charges in this instance.

Consider just the following snippets from Mr. Comey’s address to the nation:

From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent. …

Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.

For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail (that is, excluding the later “up-classified” e-mails).

None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail.

Separately, it is important to say something about the marking of classified information. Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked “classified” in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it. …

Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. …

To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.

Objective Americans know that if they were guilty of a fraction of the negligence shown by Mrs. Clinton during her time as secretary of state that they would be rotting in a jail cell this very moment. The fact that nothing — nothing — will be done to the woman is proof that our country has gone over a cliff. It’s over. The future of the United States is going to be a very dark place, even if there are countless citizens who do not realize they are living in a very real version of Animal Farm.

There are millions of Americans right now who are a.) so blindly partisan that they do not care how dangerous this moment in history is, or b.) so stupid and lazy that high-speed internet streams of NFL football, cat videos, and naked women keep them placated. It would take a miracle of epic proportions to save the country at this point, but at the same time it is right and just for America to reap what it has sown.

This afternoon I tried to discuss the FBI’s decision with a friend and instead of getting visibly angry my eyes just teared up and I thanked God I was behind a computer screen. My wife and I live comfortable lives and we know that we are fortunate to be the right kind of “animal” on this Orwellian estate. My tears are not for myself or the woman I love, but for the generations of Americans to come who will live in country where there are special rules for the elite and well-connected, and then there are rules for everyone else.

If you have a moment, then watch Mr. Comey’s press conference from earlier today. If it turns your stomach, then feel free to throw up your feelings in the comment section below.

 

Advertisements

R.I.P. America: State Dept. says no emails by Clinton’s top IT aide in 4 years

Hillary Clinton Snapchat email joke

There comes a point in time when a nation becomes so corrupt that its death becomes imminent. The United States, in all likelihood, has crossed that threshold. One only needs to look at Monday’s revelation by the State Department that it has no emails from Hillary Clinton’s top IT aide during her four years as secretary of state.

Correction: A single “happy birthday” email was found in 30,000 pages of documents related to the personal server Mrs. Clinton ran out of her home in New York.

The Associated Press reported Monday:

The State Department can find no emails to or from a former Hillary Clinton aide who worked for the agency and also managed Clinton’s private computer server while she served as secretary of state, the government told a Republican party group in a court filing made public Monday. The agency insisted later that some messages to and from the ex-aide were recovered and turned over in other inquiries.

The government’s revelation in U.S. District Court in Washington came in answer to a lawsuit by the Republican National Committee. The committee had sued over its public records request for all work-related emails sent to or received by Clinton’s former aide, Bryan Pagliano, between 2009 and 2013, the years of Clinton’s tenure. The lawsuit also pressed for other State Department records from the Clinton era.

The lack of any official State Department emails raises the question whether he limited his email traffic using a private account, much like Clinton did during her four years as secretary, or whether his government emails were deleted. …

State Department officials told Senate investigators last year they could not find a file containing Pagliano’s work emails during Clinton’s tenure, an assertion first reported by Politico.

Pagliano has been offered immunity by the Justice Department in its continuing investigation into Clinton’s server and emails and whether the setup violated national security laws. Pagliano’s lawyer, Mark MacDougall, declined to comment.

The one email sent by Pagliano that surfaced among Clinton’s 30,000 emails was sent to Clinton was a November 2012 birthday greeting. He wished her “Happy Birthday Madam Secretary. To many more!”

As has been stated on this blog multiple times: It would take the federal government less than five minutes to have someone like me handcuffed and dressed in an orange jumpsuit if I were given access to highly classified information and then funneled it through a private server in my basement to avoid Freedom of Information Act requests.

Years ago I was an IT intern for a major think tank in Washington, D.C. It was filled with well-established men and women who may have met or interacted with the former secretary of state over the years. They were old, and like most old people they needed a lot of help with technical issues. In fact, some of them seemingly could not go one week without help from the IT department.

The point is this: Anyone who says he believes Mr. Pagliano sent just a single birthday email to Mrs. Clinton in the four years after setting up a private email server for her is either a liar or an idiot.

On a similar note, the individuals at the U.S. State Department who say with a straight face that Mr. Pagliano did his job without emailing Mrs. Clinton are in a special class of liars.

Bryan Pagliano FOIA

The FBI is expected to finish its investigation into Mrs. Clinton’s handling of government documents within weeks. If the agency does not recommend she face some kind of charges related to “gross negligence” on the job, then it will be further proof that America is a dead man walking.

Jazz Shaw puts it well over at Hotair:

Look, I understand that a criminal investigation has to rely on the facts and they must be supportable in a court of law. And sometimes strange things which defy conventional explanation do happen. (How else do you explain all those UFO sightings?) But at some point the public has to be allowed a reasonable level of incredulity when politicians and government officials begin spinning yarns which require us to believe that the sky is actually bright green instead of blue.

The idea that Pagliano didn’t send or receive any emails while managing Clinton’s email services is not just far fetched… it’s insulting to ask us to believe it.

Unfortunately, what the State Department is asking Americans to believe is much more than “insulting.” It’s actually the kind of state-sponsored middle finger to citizens that can spark a revolution.

There are only so many times a corrupt government can do the equivalent of kicking its own people in the groin before things turn ugly. Allowing Mrs. Clinton to make a mockery of government transparency and safeguards to national security may be one boot to the crotch too many.

An open letter to James Comey and the FBI about Hillary Clinton’s missing server Snapchat joke

Hillary Clinton Snapchat email jokeDear FBI director James Comey and the men and women of the FBI,

By now you know that former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s response to turning over her personal e-mail server to FBI investigators was to mock their work with a Snapchat joke at a campaign event.

“You may have seen that I’ve recently launched a Snapchat account. I love it. I love it. Those messages disappear all by themselves,” Mrs. Clinton said at an event in Iowa.

As an American who respects the rule of law, I interpret this joke as a giant middle finger to the FBI. It is the mark of a woman who thinks “My husband plays golf with the president while visiting Martha’s Vineyard. You won’t touch me. You can’t touch me.”

Given that the inspector general (IG) for U.S. intelligence agencies revealed Top Secret information had passed through Mrs. Clinton’s private server, and given that at least 305 more documents have now been sent to different agencies for review, I am pleading with you to respond to Mrs. Clinton’s rhetorical “Screw you” as you do to every other American who acts like they are above the law.

To every young FBI agent out there I ask the following questions:

  • What would happen if you somehow managed to have Platte River Networks set up your own private e-mail server, and then used it to conduct day-to-day operations?
  • What would happen if Top Secret information and hundreds (perhaps thousands) of classified documents passed through that server?
  • What if your supervisors found out about your private e-mail server and then you tried to wipe the device clean, held onto it for months, and only then turned it over to investigators?
  • Where would your career be after all of this, and what would happen if you joked about it in public?

In order for the great American experiment to work, citizens need to have faith in the system. When powerful people openly flaunt their ability to play by a completely different set of rules, civil society breaks down. When a politician’s behavior is so grossly irresponsible that the FBI needs to get involved to figure out if national security was compromised — and then she makes cavalier jokes about the matter — it sends the wrong message to anyone who cares about the future of the nation.

Mr. Comey, the pressure put upon you by well-connected people to make this all go away will be great. It must be hard to look at President Obama playing golf with Bill Clinton immediately after the FBI took Hillary’s private email server, and then move ahead with honesty and integrity. Mr. Obama has non-verbally asked the FBI to take the easy wrong instead of the hard right.

Now, more than ever, it is incumbent upon you to remember that the FBI motto — Fidelity, Bravery, Integrity — exists for a reason. I pray that you will go where the evidence takes you and do what is right.

Best,

Doug

Hillary Clinton turns over server to FBI — after months — yet campaign still calls story ‘nonsense’

Clinton APFormer Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton had a pretty good gig — she got to filter Top Secret e-mails, Clinton Foundation work, and personal correspondences through a single server in her home in Chappaqua, New York. For months she tried to downplay the implications of her decision, but after the inspector general (IG) for U.S. intelligence agencies found out that top-secret information went through that server, she turned it over to the FBI. Her campaign’s response: “this kind of nonsense comes with the territory of running for president.” Seriously.

The Washington Post reported Aug. 12:

The FBI transfer Wednesday occurred one day after a top intelligence official whose office has been reviewing some of Clinton’s e-mails informed congressional leaders that top-secret information had been contained in two e-mails that traveled across the server.

The e-mail issue has become problematic for Clinton, the front-runner for the Democratic nomination for president. On Wednesday, her campaign worked to reassure donors and supporters amid the rising controversy over the e-mail issue. In a blast e-mail, the campaign’s communications director, Jennifer Palmieri, said “this kind of nonsense comes with the territory of running for president.”

The controversy over Clinton’s e-mail dates to the summer of 2014, when, according to government officials, State Department lawyers realized they didn’t have access to some of her records as they prepared responses to congressional requests related to the 2012 attacks on a U.S. compound in Benghazi, Libya.

Imagine you were General David Petraeus, who was indicted, prosecuted, and ultimately convicted of sharing confidential information (i.e., the lowest level of classified materials).

Imagine you were Sandy Berger, who was found guilty of stealing classified material out of the National Archives — he shoved them down his pants — to better protect Bill Clinton’s reputation after the September 11, 2001 terror attacks.

Imagine you were Chelsea Manning, sitting in prison for the next three decades for leaking government files to WikiLeaks.

Now imagine how you would feel if you watched the former Secretary of State get away with housing Top Secret information on her own personal e-mail server — completely out of reach of the federal government during her tenure with the Obama administration. You would feel pretty angry, wouldn’t you?

This is not the “kind of nonsense” one must deal with when he or she runs for president. “Nonsense” would something along the lines of The New York Times reporting on Marco Rubio’s four speeding tickets — since 1997. “Nonsense” would be like The Times reporting that Marco Rubio might not make a good president because he acquired a lot of student loans on his way to becoming a Florida Senator.

It is not “nonsense” when the FBI essentially says “Give us your person e-mail server before we make you give it to us” after finding out that it contained Top Secret information.

Reason magazine reported Aug. 12 just how bad the situation really is for Mrs. Clinton:

Given that 10 percent of the emails in the small batch examined by the IG were classified, it’s more than likely that there are many, many more of the communications on that server are classified too. Clinton claimed that “there is no classified material,” but what we know is that there’s definitely some, and almost certainly quite a lot of it.

Since her initial statement in March, Clinton’s campaign has updated her story. Her claim is now that none of the emails were classified at the time they were sent. “She followed appropriate practices in dealing with classified materials,” campaign spokesperson Nick Merrill told Politico in July. “Any released emails deemed classified by the administration have been done so after the fact, and not at the time they were transmitted.”

A joint statement in July from IGs at the State Department and the Director of National Intelligence indicates otherwise.

“[The four classified] emails were not retroactively classified by the State Department,” the statement says. “Rather these emails contained classified information when they were generated and, according to IC classification officials, that information remains classified today. This classified information should never have been transmitted via an unclassified personal system.”

Only the most pathetic kind of partisan hack can look at this story and call it a non-issue or “nonsense.” In a best-case scenario for Mrs. Clinton, it shows that she thinks that the rules others have to live by do not apply to her or close associates. Rules are for “the little people.” And sadly, if her friends in high places make all of this go away, it will send a message to millions of Americans that, indeed, the so-called masterminds in Washington, D.C. can do just about anything they want and get away with it — if they know how to pull the right combination of strings at their disposal.

If Americans want to know why Donald Trump’s campaign has traction, then they need to look no further than Mrs. Clinton’s email scandal. If Mrs. Clinton and her media allies convince enough Americans that the cloud of dishonesty over her head is really an angelic halo — and if her political allies in Washington, D.C., find a way to bury this controversy in a deep dark Memory Hole — then it will on many levels vindicate the Trump voter’s “Burning Down the House” mentality.

Hillary Clinton used personal email account for all State Dept. business: Laws are for little people

Clinton APAt what point in time do the American people wake from their XBox and iPhone induced slumber and realize that the bureaucratic masterminds in Washington, D.C. are the nightmares of our founding fathers vivified? It may not be too far off because even The New York Times is drawing attention to the fact that Hillary Clinton exclusively used — yes, exclusively — her personal email account to conduct all business as Secretary of State.

The New York Times reported March 2:

WASHINGTON — Hillary Rodham Clinton exclusively used a personal email account to conduct government business as secretary of state, State Department officials said, and may have violated federal requirements that officials’ correspondence be retained as part of the agency’s record.

Mrs. Clinton did not have a government email address during her four-year tenure at the State Department. Her aides took no actions to have her personal emails preserved on department servers at the time, as required by the Federal Records Act.

It was only two months ago, in response to a new State Department effort to comply with federal record-keeping practices, that Mrs. Clinton’s advisers reviewed tens of thousands of pages of her personal emails and decided which ones to turn over to the State Department. …

“It is very difficult to conceive of a scenario — short of nuclear winter — where an agency would be justified in allowing its cabinet-level head officer to solely use a private email communications channel for the conduct of government business,” said Jason R. Baron, a lawyer at Drinker Biddle & Reath who is a former director of litigation at the National Archives and Records Administration.

Only a woman who believes herself to be exempt from the rules that govern the rest of us would exclusively use her personal email to conduct all official business as the Secretary of State. Most shady officials at least try to create a false veneer of transparency before finding ways to circumvent laws that inconvenience their plans — but not Hillary Clinton.

Ask yourself this question: What would be the reaction if, under a Republican president, his Secretary of State exclusively used her personal email account to conduct all official business? Now ask yourself if that individual could realistically ever run for president. The answer is simple: she would be laughed out of the room. She would be disqualified. She would be an embarrassment to everyone who ever vouched for her integrity.

The Hill reported Tuesday on what Ms. Clinton’s close friend John Podesta thought of the Bush administration’s partial use of personal email accounts in 2007:

A top adviser to Hillary Clinton’s campaign-in-waiting accused the George W. Bush administration of using private emails to skirt transparency rules in 2007.

John Podesta, who left the White House in February for an unofficial role with Clinton, criticized Bush administration officials for using Republican National Committee email accounts for official business.

“At the end of the day, it looks like they were trying to avoid the Records Act . . . by operating official business off the official systems,” Podesta said in an interview with The Wall Street Journal.

The Bush White House admitted that it lost thousands of emails that weren’t backed up. Spokesman Scott Stanzel told reporters in 2007 that the White House had “not done a good job” of complying with transparency laws, according to The Los Angeles Times. …

Nick Merrill, Clinton’s spokesman, said in an email that, “the letter and spirit of the rules permitted State Department officials to use non-government email, as long as appropriate records were preserved.”

Wrong, Mr. Merrill. The rules were crafted as an acknowledgement that politicians get boatloads of email every single day from a variety of sources, and that some of those emails might exist in a grey area where professional and personal life meet. Conducting zero business on an official government email account is not in accordance with the “spirit” of the law — it is anathema to the spirit of the law.

Here is Ms. Clinton’s thoughts on government transparency in 2008:

I want to have a much more transparent government and I think we now have the tools to make that happen. … For me, we’re now in an era which didn’t exist before, where you can have Instant access to information. I want to see my government be more transparent.” — Hillary Clinton on Meet the Press, 2008.

Odd how things change when you’re the Secretary of State, isn’t it? Yes, the government does have the “tools” make transparency happen — it’s called an official government email account, Ms. Clinton — coupled with the timely response to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. In that regard, you have essentially spit in the American public’s face and said, “I do what I want. Deal with it.”

If the American people elect Ms. Clinton president in 2016 — a woman who thinks she is above the rule of law — then they deserve all the consequences that follow.

John Kerry: I was for bombing Syria before I was against it — so gas away, Assad

Britain Syria

John Kerry was for bombing Syria before he was against it. It was just about a year ago that the Secretary of State said that history would judge us all “extraordinarily harshly” if something (i.e., a military strike) wasn’t done about the Assad regime gassing its own citizens to death.

“Now, we know that after a decade of conflict, the American people are tired of war. Believe me, I am, too. But fatigue does not absolve us of our responsibility. Just longing for peace does not necessarily bring it about. And history would judge us all extraordinarily harshly if we turned a blind eye to a dictator’s wanton use of weapons of mass destruction against all warnings, against all common understanding of decency,” — (John Kerry, Aug. 20, 2013).

Today? Well, Chlorine is bad but it’s not really that bad. And, well, we don’t really want to be “pinned down” with actually having to do anything with the 150,000 dead bodies (and counting) in Syria. So maybe someone else will figure it out. Someday.

Here’s what the guy who voted for war spending in Iraq and Afghanistan before voting against it said in London May 15:

“With respect to the [chemical weapons] and what the consequences are, it has been made clear by President Obama and others that use would result in consequences. We’re not going to pin ourselves down to a precise time, date, manner of action, but there will be consequences if it were to be proven, including, I might say, things that are way beyond our control and have nothing to do with us. But the International Criminal Court and others are free to hold him accountable. And as you know, we have a resolution that will be in front of the United Nations with respect to culpability for crimes against humanity, atrocities in the course of this conflict. So one way or the other, there will be accountability,” (John Kerry, May 15, 2014).

As radio host Chris Plante said: Chlorine takes the “red” out of red lines!

Kerry Football

Why is it okay to murder your own citizens with bullets, bombs and Chlorine gas, but it’s not okay to do so with VX nerve agent? Why did the U.S. bomb the hell out of Libya for “humanitarian” purposes, but then does nothing in Syria?

Politicians like John Kerry make the world a more dangerous place because they perpetually engage in doublespeak. They take every side on an issue, act on what is politically expedient and then (if they have the right letter next to their name) count on the media to throw all the contradictory statements down the Memory Hole.

What makes matters worse is that dictators like Bashar al Assad and former KGB agents like Vladimir Putin know that men like John Kerry are generally unprincipled buffoons, so they act in ways they otherwise wouldn’t; they know they can get away with it (e.g., the annexation of Crimea).

When John Kerry says things like Bashar al Assad gassing his own people was the “straw that broke the camel’s back,” the world’s worst actors just laugh because they know that all they have to do is feign interest in a “deal” of some kind to get men  like John Kerry to blubber themselves into a new position.

It isn’t often that dictators around the world get to do whatever the heck they want and know that they can do so, for all intents and purposes, with impunity. Before President Obama leaves office, expect a few more surprises from the usual cast of international thugs and lowlifes because they will want to push the envelope as far as possible before the 2016 presidential election.

Place yourself in the shoes of Nicholas Maduro, Bashar al Assad, Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping or Kim Jong-un. What would you do? Answer that question and then ask yourself another: How has “leading from behind” worked for the United States since 2008?

 

 

Black Hawk Dumb: Terror haven Somalia likely to get U.S. taxpayer cash

It was only two years ago that then-CIA Director David Petraeus testified before Congress on the dangers posed by Somali terrorists, saying “extremist networks over the past two decades have made southern Somalia one of the world’s most significant havens for terrorists. Al Qaeda’s affiliate there — al Shabaab — is large and well-funded relative to most extremist groups, and it has attracted and trained hundreds of foreign fighters, including scores of Americans and dozens from other Western countries.”

Today the U.S. is preparing to formally recognize the Somali government, paving the way to send taxpayer dollars to the place that will forever be associated with “Black Hawk Down,” where a U.S. Army Ranger was dragged through the streets in 1993.

Bloomberg reports:

    The U.S. will formally recognize the government in Somalia tomorrow, a step that paves the way for the U.S. and international finance organizations to aid the war-torn African nation.

“It’s the start of a significant process that underscores the return to stability that has occurred in Somalia over the last four years,” U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Johnnie Carson said [told] reporters. …

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton plans to exchange diplomatic notes with Somali President Hassan Sheikh Mohamoud … in a meeting at the State Department.

Americans watched as the Obama administration gave weapons and aid to Libyan rebels. Our reward? U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and former Navy SEALs were slain in the Benghazi terrorist attack on Sept. 11, 2012. Now the American people are supposed to believe that with a few U.S. dollars and some help from the CIA, Somali President Hassan Sheikh Mohamoud can transform Mogadishu into Club Med.

Most Americans don’t know about the importance of the clan in Islamic culture. They are unfamiliar with women like Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who grew up in Somalia and says she was beaten until she learned 800 years of her father’s ancestry, or that strangers in the country will often trace their lineages until they find a common ancestor. But the State Department does know this. Yet Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is planning to exchange “notes” with Somalia’s president, which will in all likelihood lead to dollars. And that cash will go to a clan culture riddled with African members of al-Shabaab, al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, Boko Haram and other terrorist groups.

If the State Department thinks it can cozy up to Somalia and not get burned, maybe it should ask French intelligence agent Denis Allex for advice. Or maybe not, since the French government believes members of al Shabaab executed him on Jan. 11.

The question before Americans isn’t whether we should be engaged in Africa, because we should (to what extent can be debated). The question is, who are we going to hold accountable if this goes horribly wrong?

If Clinton’s aversion to answering questions about the Benghazi terrorist attacks and ensuing cover-up is the model for how this administration does business, conservatives should make oversight of any cash transfers to Somalia a priority. If something goes wrong in Mogadishu, the most likely scapegoat will be Republican members of the 113th Congress.

Libya hearing exposes White House shell game

House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., revealed Tuesday that U.S. diplomats in Libya made repeated requests for increased security for the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi but were turned down by officials in Washington (Photo Credit AP).

At Wednesday’s House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing on the Sept. 11 terrorist attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, Chairman Darrell Issa’s questioning made one thing certain: The Obama administration’s initial explanation — that the deaths of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were directly related to Islamic rage over a YouTube video — becomes more troubling with each passing day.

Before questioning began, Army Lt. Col. Andrew Wood, former head of a Special Forces site security team who was closely involved with operational planning for security in the region, testified to the increasing attacks on Western interests in the months preceding the Benghazi attack. He traveled to Benghazi after a successful attack on the British ambassador’s convoy, and was aware of online threats made against Mr. Stevens. And yet, months later, Stevens would die attempting to exit an escape hatch in a smoke-filled room. His would-be rescuers would then perish in a mortar barrage.

Referencing a July 9 cable from Mr. Stevens provided by State Department whistleblowers, Rep. Issa showed that Mr. Stevens requested additional security support but was denied by Charlene Lamb, deputy assistant secretary of state for international programs, ostensibly because it wasn’t a formal request. Ms. Lamb maintained Wednesday that the U.S. Consulate had the “correct” amount of security on the day of the attack, even though, as Mr. Issa pointed out, the compound was overrun within minutes.

Read the rest over at Times247.com