The real reason 'mainstream media' protect Hillary

From: World Net Daily

by - David Kupelian


The blizzard of WikiLeaks revelations of collusion between the “mainstream media” and the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign – working hand-in-hand behind the scenes to destroy Donald Trump and return the Clintons to the White House – are highly disturbing, but not at all surprising. Here’s why.

Rush Limbaugh’s frequent characterization of the establishment press as “an extension of the Democratic Party” is neither a metaphor nor an exaggeration. It is literally true. As the Media Research Center has long documented, not only is there a virtual “revolving door” between Democratic Party administrations and the “mainstream media” – but to a great extent, the two institutions are made up of the same people!

Many Americans have suspected this, especially when seeing high-profile examples like George Stephanopoulos, the fiercely loyal Clinton partisan who served as White House communications director and senior policy for adviser for Bill Clinton, but who later magically morphed into a top “mainstream” journalist as chief anchor and chief political correspondent for ABC News, co-anchor of “Good Morning America,” host of ABC’s “Sunday Morning This Week” and regular substitute anchor for “ABC World News Tonight.” One of the thousands of just-leaked Clinton campaign emails strongly suggests Hillary’s campaign colluded with Stephanopoulos before his interview with “Clinton Cash” author Peter Schweizer last year (an interview for which Stephanopoulos was later criticized for not disclosing he’d personally donated $75,000 to the Clinton Foundation).

Even more egregious, another WikiLeaks email dump reveals that Donna Brazile, while at CNN, was literally Clinton’s mole – feeding her intel about Bernie Sanders attacks during the primary season, and reportedly tipping off Clinton as to questions that would be asked at upcoming town hall meetings. After Debbie Wasserman Schultz (thanks to revelations from an earlier WikiLeaks data-dump) was fired as chair of the Democratic National Committee for sabotaging Bernie Sanders’ primary run, she was replaced as DNC chair by Brazile.

But Stephanopoulos and Brazile are just the tip of the iceberg. Here, courtesy of MRC, are just a few more of the countless other Obama-era examples of the wild revolving door between the left-wing “mainstream media” and the left-wing government:

• Jay Carney, once Time magazine’s Washington correspondent, and later Time’s Washington bureau chief, became assistant to the vice president and director of communications for Vice President Joe Biden, and eventually White House press secretary for Barack Obama. Then in September 2014, Carney jumped back into the “mainstream media,” joining CNN as senior political commentator.

• Samantha Power, a foreign correspondent for U.S. News & World Report, the Boston Globe and the New Republic, became special assistant to the president and senior director for multilateral affairs and human rights on the National Security Staff, later becoming the highly influential U.S. ambassador to the United Nations under Obama.

• David Axelrod, once a political reporter for the Chicago Tribune, became chief strategist for the Obama presidential campaign and later Obama’s senior adviser. Since 2013, he has gone back to the media, working as a senior political analyst for MSNBC, and more recently, for CNN.

• Ronan Farrow, a special adviser for humanitarian and NGO affairs in the Office of the Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan under Obama, and later a special adviser to the secretary of state, Office of Global Youth Issues, became host of MSNBC’s “Ronan Farrow Daily” in 2014. After the show was canceled, Farrow became special correspondent for MSNBC and the NBC News Investigative Unit.

• Aneesh Raman, a CNN Middle East correspondent, worked in communications for the 2008 Obama campaign, later becoming a speechwriter for Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and ultimately a speechwriter for President Barack Obama.

• Jane Pauley, co-host of NBC’s “Today” and later co-host of “Dateline NBC,” campaigned in Indiana for Barack Obama in 2008, later going back to the “Today” show in 2010. Pauley subsequently joined CBS News as a contributor to “CBS News Sunday Morning.”

• Shailagh Murray, a Wall Street Journal correspondent and later Washington Post political reporter, became the communications director for Vice President Joe Biden and was later named senior adviser to President Obama.

• Desson Thomson, Washington Post film critic, became a speechwriter for Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

• Richard Stengel, managing editor of Time.com and later managing editor of Time magazine, became undersecretary of state for public diplomacy and public affairs under Obama.

• Beverley Lumpkin, long-time Justice Department correspondent in the Washington bureaus of CBS News and ABC News, became press secretary at the Justice Department under Obama.

• Warren Bass, senior editor of the Washington Post’s “Book World” and deputy editor of the “Outlook” section, became director of speechwriting and senior policy adviser to Obama’s U.N. Ambassador Susan E. Rice.

• Glen Johnson, online politics editor for the Boston Globe and journalist with the Associated Press, became deputy assistant secretary of state, Bureau of Public Affairs, and senior adviser to Secretary of State John Kerry.

• Peter Gosselin, a Los Angeles Times Washington and economics correspondent, became chief speechwriter for Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner in 2009, eventually moving back into the media as senior health-care analyst with Bloomberg Government.

• Vijay Ravindran, chief technology officer for Catalist, a voter database provider who worked for the Obama for America campaign in 2008, later became chief digital officer and senior vice president of the Washington Post Company.

• Tara Sonenshine, ABC News Washington Bureau producer and later editorial producer for ABC’s “Nightline,” became undersecretary of state for public diplomacy and public affairs in the Obama administration.

• Desiree Rogers, White House social secretary under Obama, became chief executive officer of the Chicago-based Johnson Publishing Company, owner of Ebony and Jet magazines.

Again, there are countless other examples, as MRC documents, but these are sufficient to make the point.

Only one thing could be more bizarre, in the United States of America, than electing Hillary Rodham Clinton as president – a sick old woman who lies constantly, values nothing but her own power and wealth, has accomplished nothing of value, advocates disastrous policies, and has spent a lifetime wallowing in criminality and corruption – and pulling all those around her down into the same muck.

That one thing even more bizarre would be the current specter of virtually the entire establishment news media, who traditionally have feigned impartiality and fairness, now falling over one another in a frenzied public campaign to put the Clintons back in the White House.

Now you know why. The “mainstream press” is increasingly just a pretense, an act, a show – just one more grand venue in which progressive-left activists can labor together to transform America. When they get tired of being “journalists” and “analysts” – or get a better job offer – they can always jump back into being part of a left-wing administration. After all, it’s really all the same show.

Just as when you watch a skit on “Saturday Night Live” with lefty comedians portraying journalists and politicians, the “mainstream press” is full of progressive actors performing their parts. The only difference is, they’re not funny.


God bless,
JohnnyD

The consequences of a Hillary Clinton victory

From: Response Action Network

13 October 2016


As GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump contends with a mixed bag of polling results (link is external) that show him hanging tough nationally, but losing ground in key swing states, Republicans are being asked to consider their alternatives closely as Election Day nears. Do they want to surrender the next round of Supreme Court picks to Hillary Clinton -- and perhaps allow the nanny state to run roughshod over our liberties -- or will they choose to put those choices, and much more, in Trump's hands? Washington Times editorial page editor David A. Keene argues (link is external) the choice is clear:

Staying home in November, voting for a third party candidate with no chance of winning or even voting for Mrs. Clinton as some unthinking conservatives hostile to Mr. Trump seem prepared to do are not rational options for one who cares about the future. Donald Trump can win in November, but he won't win if those of us who care about the freedoms and values that we say are so important to us don't do our part to help him win. 

The consequences of undermining his candidacy at this point are not difficult to predict and won't be pretty. If conservatives desert at this juncture, Mrs. Clinton will end up with a Democratic Senate and if that happens she will get just about everything she wants. Her Supreme Court appointees will eventually be confirmed, treaties that are awaiting ratification will be ratified, the power of an already too powerful executive will increase and many of the freedoms we have always taken for granted will be in danger of becoming mere memories. 

We know our readers believe in freedom, and cherish liberty. Those beliefs, and who they think is best equiped to see those beliefs turned into actions, will guide their choice for president in November. 


God bless,
JohnnyD

Jon Voight Releases Video Urging Americans To Vote For Trump

 From: TownHall

by -Christine Rousselle - Oct 14, 2016

Actor Jon Voight has released a new video urging Americans to vote for Donald Trump in order to save the United States of America. Titled, "John Voight's plea to save America," Voight discusses George Soros, Islamic terrorism, and Robert DeNiro as he goes over the multitude of reasons as to why he believes Hillary Clinton will be a bad president. 

Watch here:




God bless,
JohnnyD

Hillary campaign staffer: Ripping up GOP voter forms 'fine'

Undercover video catches dismissive attitude on registrations from Republicans

 

From: World Net Daily 

by - Bob Unruh - October 12, 2016

An undercover video campaign aimed at exposing voter fraud has caught a campaign staffer for Hillary Clinton confessing that ripping up voter registration forms – if they are for Republicans – is “fine.”

The video also reveals a sexist atmosphere inside the Clinton campaign in which another staffer boasts he would probably have to “grab a–” twice before he’d even reprimanded. It underscores the double standard by Democrats who have been critical of the 11-year-old recording of Donald Trump making lewd remarks about women.

In a new video from James O’Keefe at Project Veritas both Wylie Mao, a field organizer for the Clinton campaign and the Democratic Party of Florida in West Palm Beach, and Trevor Lafauci, a Clinton campaign staffer, agree that ripping up registration forms from Republicans should be “fine.”


“If I rip up completed VR forms, like 20 of them, I think I’ll just get reprimanded. I don’t think I would get fired,” Mao said.

And Lafauci, after being told that someone else ripped up Republican registration forms, said, “Yeah, that should be fine.”

When Project Veritas journalists confronted both Mao and Lafauci about the comments they made on camera, they “refused to answer and walked away,” the organization said.

Sources have reported that O’Keefe is planning to release a series of videos from his explosive undercover investigation exposing fraud and corruption at the highest levels among operatives close to the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign.

The latest video (Some listeners may find the language objectionable):
http://www.wnd.com/2016/10/hillary-campaign-staffer-ripping-up-gop-voter-forms-fine/ 
 
A video released yesterday showed a top Democrat admitting voter fraud is common:
http://www.wnd.com/2016/10/hillary-campaign-staffer-ripping-up-gop-voter-forms-fine/ 
 
O’Keefe released an undercover video of Alan Schulkin, the New York Democratic commissioner of the Board of Elections, confirming there is widespread fraud.

In the video, he is heard disclosing that organizers use buses to haul people from poll to poll to vote.

“Yeah, they should ask for your ID. I think there is a lot of voter fraud,” he said in the video that was recorded some months ago.

It is rumored that O’Keefe managed to infiltrate the Democrats’ “smoke-filled rooms” with a hidden camera showing their conspiracy to rig the election. He plans to release what he found between now and Election Day.

Schulkin’s comments included: “You know, I don’t think it’s too much to ask somebody to show some kind of an ID. … Like I say, people don’t realize, certain neighborhoods in particular they bus people around to vote.”

He blamed New York City Mayor Bill DeBlasio for part of the headache.

“He gave out ID cards. De Blasio. That’s in lieu of a driver’s license, but you can use it for anything. But, they didn’t vet people to see who they really are. Anybody can go in there and say I am Joe Smith, I want an ID card. It’s absurd. There’s a lot of fraud. Not just voter fraud, all kinds of fraud.”

WND reported in July that activists were gearing up to try to take down voter ID laws before November’s election in states such as Missouri, Wisconsin, North Carolina, Texas and North Dakota.

The most common argument is that voter ID laws would disenfranchise certain groups of people, including racial minorities, the poor and younger voters.

But Daniel Horowitz, a senior editor at Conservative Review, believes the opposition is an example of the left’s tendency to twist the concept of rights in order to grant special privileges to protected classes of individuals at the expense of the rest of the population.

“They’re basically saying that there is a mandate, a right for an individual to vote fraudulently and thereby strip rights away from everyone else,” Horowitz told WND in an interview.

Horowitz details the many ways American voters are being disenfranchised in his new book, “Stolen Sovereignty: How to Stop Unelected Judges From Transforming America.” Although he did not discuss voter ID laws in the book, he said attacks on such laws are part of the left-wing effort to disenfranchise Americans who have a legitimate right to vote.

“It ties in to the general sense of them refusing to adopt basic bedrock regulations to illegal immigrants voting, having illegal immigrants come here and getting citizenship for their children,” Horowitz said. “It’s a disenfranchising of the public, diluting what it means to be an American. Diluting the franchise really undercuts the guaranteed liberty that we all have to vote in elections.”

Matthew Vadum, senior vice president at the investigative think tank Capital Research Center, agreed with Horowitz about liberals’ true motive for opposing voter ID.

“It makes it harder for them to cheat,” Vadum told WND. “There’s no rational reason to oppose voter ID requirements.”

Vadum, author of “Subversion, Inc.,” noted even Mexico makes voters get a special ID card to vote. He said he’s not advocating that for the United States, but the requirement in many states that voters show a photo ID to prove they are eligible to vote does not strike him as an unreasonable request.

“Anyone who wouldn’t be willing to prove that isn’t a citizen,” Vadum declared. “They’re trying to commit fraud, either by voting a second or third or fourth or fifth time, or by voting under false pretenses or using someone else’s identity, and so on. Voter ID nips voting fraud in the bud.”

Vadum said there are myriad left-wing pressure groups behind the effort to dismantle voter ID laws, including Project Vote, Demos, People for the American Way, Campaign for America’s Future and all of the ACORN successor groups.

“ACORN itself doesn’t exist anymore, but many of its state organizations have incorporated themselves under new names, like in California, one of the bigger successor groups is Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment, or ACCE,” Vadum explained. “So they’re quite active in fighting electoral integrity measures.”

After the 2012 presidential election, WND released its Big List of Vote Fraud Reports, recounting the 59 Philadelphia precincts in which Mitt Romney received zero votes compared to Obama’s 19,605. And the Cleveland precinct in which Obama beat Romney 542 to 0. (Romney received zero votes in nine Cleveland precincts.) And that’s just the beginning.

Among the reports from that election:

The Market Daily News reported on the 100 precincts in Cuyahoga County, Ohio, that on election day gave Romney zero votes while Obama got 99 percent. “In more than 50 different precincts, Romney received two votes or less,” the report said. “One would think that such improbable results would get the attention of somebody out there.”

According to Philly.com, 59 voting divisions in Philadelphia produced a “head-spinning figure,” not one vote for Romney. “The unanimous support for Obama in these Philadelphia neighborhoods – clustered in almost exclusively black sections of West and North Philadelphia – fertilizes fears of fraud, despite little hard evidence,” the newspaper said.

A poll watcher told WND up to 10 percent of the ballots cast at a polling station in Pennsylvania reverted to a default, which gave Barack Obama a vote no matter who the voter had selected. The incident took place in the state where officials claimed Obama got a total of 19,605 votes in 59 voting divisions to zero for Mitt Romney and not far from the 100 precincts in Ohio where Obama got 99 percent of the vote, a feat not even achieved by third-world dictators. It was in Upper Macungie Township, near Allentown, Pa., where an auditor, Robert Ashcroft, was dispatched by Republicans to monitor the vote on Election Day. He said the software he observed would “change the selection back to default – to Obama.”

See the Big List for all the details.


O’Keefe’s video also addressed the ongoing fracas over Trump’s years-old comments.

Mao, in the new video, “is caught on camera saying that the Hillary Clinton campaign would excuse his sexual assault of a fellow female campaign worker.”

“I think the bar of acceptable conduct in this campaign is pretty low. To be fired I would have to grab Emma’s a– twice and she would have to complain about it, I would have to sexually harass someone,” said Mao.

“After saying that he could get away with sexually harassing fellow female Hillary Clinton organizers, several female campaign organizers are seen laughing at his comments,” Project Veritas explains.


God bless,
JohnnyD

  

Gen. Mike Flynn: Why Hillary's record on Libya is even worse than you think

From: Fox News

By Michael Flynn - Published October 06, 2016

A failed state, a terrorist haven, four dead Americans – this is the Hillary Clinton record in Libya we know about.

But new evidence -- and a review of the public record -- reveals that Hillary Clinton’s actions in Libya were not just disastrous policy, but a violation of U.S. anti-terrorism law.

A recent report to the Foreign Affairs Committee of the British House of Commons concluded that Western intervention in Libya was based on "inaccurate intelligence" and "erroneous assumptions." Advocates failed to recognize that “the threat to civilians was overstated and that the rebels included a significant Islamist element," and the failure to plan for a post-Qaddafi Libya led to the "growth of ISIL" in North Africa.

However, “inaccurate intelligence” doesn’t fully describe the whole story. A closer examination of the run-up to the Libya debacle on September 11, 2012 leads to the irrefutable conclusion that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton knowingly armed radical Islamist terrorists in Libya. 

False pretenses

The American public was told that the intervention in Libya was necessary to prevent a humanitarian crisis. But just as Hillary Clinton would describe the attack on our Benghazi diplomats as a spontaneous protest over a video, the military intervention that led inexorably to the debacle in Benghazi was sold on false pretenses: to prevent an imminent massacre of civilians engaged in a pro-democracy uprising.

Hillary Clinton described the 2011 Arab Spring rebellion in eastern Libya as a spontaneous pro-democracy uprising, but the Libyan connection to radical Islamic extremist groups was well known long before 2011.

The region where the rebellion began was a fervid recruiting ground for jihadis who killed American forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The leaders of the “civilian uprising” that Hillary Clinton supported were members of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) who had pledged allegiance to Al Qaeda. They refused to take orders from non-Islamist commanders and assassinated the then leader of the rebel army, Abdel Fattah Younes.

The LIFG had been jailed under Qaddafi until hundreds of their members were released through a de-radicalization program. That program was spearheaded by an exiled Muslim Brotherhood affiliated Libyan cleric based in Qatar named Ali al-Sallabi. The jihadis pledged they would never use violence against Gaddafi again.

But nearly as soon as the LIFG was released they took up arms against the Qaddafi regime.

Just as there was ample evidence that Hillary’s “pro-democracy protestors” were radical Islamists, there was no truth to the assertion a civilian massacre was imminent.

Libyan doctors told United Nations investigators that, of the more than 200 corpses in Tripoli’s morgues following fighting in late February 2011, only two were female. This indicates Qaddafi’s forces targeted male combatants and did not indiscriminately attack civilians. Nor had Qaddafi forces attacked civilians after retaking towns from the rebels in early February 2011.

While Muammar Qaddafi had a 40-year record of appalling human rights violations, his abuses did not include large-scale attacks on Libyan civilians. We restored full diplomatic relations with Qaddafi in 2007 and he was a key partner in counter-terrorism efforts.

LIFG and affiliated jihadis received at least 18 shipments of arms from Qatar with the blessing of the U.S., the Wall Street Journal reports. The arms shipments were funneled through none other than Ali al-Sallabi, the Qatar cleric who brokered their release from prison.

The Islamists were able to pay for the weapons because Clinton had convinced Obama to grant full diplomatic recognition to the rebels, against the advice of State Department lawyers and the Secretary of Defense.

As the Washington Post reported, this move “allowed the Libyans access to billions of dollars from Qaddafi’s frozen accounts.”

These arms shipments are significant for several reasons. It led to the indictment of American arms dealer Marc Turi who was charged with selling weapons to Islamist militants in Libya through Qatar. The charges were dropped this week after Turi threatened to reveal emails showing Clinton had approved the sales.

Here’s where it gets very sticky for Secretary Clinton. The rebel leaders were on the State Department’s Foreign Terrorist Organization list. It is a direct violation of the law to provide material support for terrorist organizations under 18 U.S. Code 2339A & 2339B. Penalties for providing or attempting to provide material support to terrorism include imprisonment from 15 years to life.

Nor is the Qatar connection insignificant. Qatar has donated anywhere from $1 to $5 million to the Clinton Foundation, and emails reveal members of the Qatari royal family were privileged with back channel meetings with Secretary Clinton at the State Department. While whipping up support for the Libya military campaign, Clinton told Arab leaders, “it’s important to me personally,” the Washington Post reported.

Hillary Clinton’s prosecution of foreign policy in Libya crossed several lines: she showed extremely bad judgment by ignoring military and intelligence officials, she let personal interests conflict with U.S. foreign policy and, most importantly, she may have broken the law -- again.

Any one of these transgressions should disqualify her from holding any kind of leadership role in our government, let alone president of the United States. The last one qualifies Hillary Clinton for government housing, though not in the White House.


God bless,
JohnnyD

DOJ abruptly drops case against gun-runner who threatened to reveal Clinton's Libya dealings

From: Fox News

By - Catherine Herridge, Pamela K. Browne - Published October 05, 2016

An arms dealer who had threatened to reveal potantially damaging information about Hillary Clinton's alleged role in arming Islamist militants until federal prosecutors abruptly dropped their case against him Tuesday, told Fox News the case has cost him everything.

Federal prosecutors faced a Wednesday deadline to turn over discovery documents to the legal team of American Marc Turi, who had been charged with selling weapons to Libyan rebels. Late Tuesday, an announcement came that the government was dropping the case, which was set to go to trial on Nov. 8 – the day American voters choose between Clinton and GOP nominee Donald Trump. The move may avert a release of potentially explosive documents.

“I am glad this horrific five-year ordeal is over and I am pleased to be able to move on with my life," Turi told Fox News in a statement. "The American public has the right to know that an injustice was committed against an innocent American."

Turi said his legal team advised him to accept the deal and avoid a trial, but insisted that his actions were in furtherance of his ongoing support of U.S. foreign policy. He said defending himself in a case that has now been dropped has scost him everything.

"The government took away my life, my savings, and my company that I worked so hard to build to serve our nation, and for what?" he said. "I still don’t really know who the unjust actors were who launched this attack against me from the shadows. I just hope that someday there will be someone that will be held accountable."

Last year, in his only extended television interview, Turi provided Fox News with documents and email exchanges he had with high-level members of Congress as well as military, and State Department employees to back up his claim that the Obama administration authorized in 2011, at the height of the Arab Spring, a covert weapons program that spun out of control.

"That's where I came up with this 'zero footprint' Arab supply chain, whereby, our foreign ally supplies another, Arab country," Turi said. In this case, the US would supply conventional weapons to a US ally-Qatar, who would inturn supply them to Libya, as a kind of workaround.

"If you want to  limit the exposure to the US government, what you simply do is outsource it to your allies,"  Turi said, describing the practice. "The partners-the Qataris, and the Emiratis did exactly what they were contracted to do." 

Turi told Fox he never supplied any weapons to Qatar, and it was in the hands of the U.S. government and the State Department's Bureau of Political and Military Affairs which was headed by a key Clinton aide, Andrew Shapiro. Shapiro was responsible to oversee the export control process at the State Department.

“They don’t want this stuff to come out because it will look really bad for Obama and Clinton just before the election,” an associate of Turi told Politico, claiming that information sought by Turi’s team would show Clinton’s own role in arming Libyan rebels fighting former strongman Col. Muammar Qaddafi while she was secretary of state.

Fox News, citing federal records, reported last year that documents showed U.S. officials supported Turi’s effort to channel weapons to Libyan rebels while Clinton was secretary of state.

Many of the arms destined for Libyan rebels ultimately fell into the hands of Islamist militants, reportedly including those in Syria.

"When this equipment landed in Libya, half went one way, and the half went the other way," Turi previously told Fox News, emphasizing that poor oversight, allowed individuals hostile to the United States to get arms.  "The half that went the other way is the half that ended up in Syria."

Fox News, citing federal documents, reported last year that documents showed U.S. officials supported Turi’s effort to channel weapons to Libyan rebels while Clinton was secretary of state.

In their motion for dismissal, federal prosecutors acknowledged that discovery rulings from U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona Judge David Campbell factored into the decision. The motion includes a request that Campbell accept a confidential agreement to settle the case civilly, further fueling claims the deal was struck to keep potentially damaging disclosures under wraps.

Turi adviser Robert Stryk accused prosecutors of bringing the case against Turi in order to cover up Clinton’s mishandling of Libya. Clinton was secretary of state on Sept. 11, 2012, when jihadists mounted an attack on two American facilities in Benghazi, killing four Americans including Ambassador Christopher Stevens.

The attack came just weeks before President Obama stood for re-election against Mitt Romney, and the administration initially – and falsely - claimed it was a spontaneous event triggered by an obscure anti-islam video. It later became evident that it was a coordinated terror attack by extremists linked to al Qaeda and Ansar al-Sharia.

Neither the Justice Department nor the White House responded to requests for comment on the case or the settlement.

Turi was indicted in 2014 on charges of arms dealing in violation of the Arms Export Control Act and lying to the State Department in official applications. Prosecutors said he falsely claimed the weapons were destined for Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. His lawyers said the arms shipments were part of a government-authorized effort to arm Libyan rebels.

The claims by Turi’s legal team were supported by documents related to the case and obtained by Fox News last year.

"It was then, and remains now, my opinion that the United States did participate, directly or indirectly, in the supply of weapons to the Libyan Transitional National Council," career CIA officer David Manners said in a sworn declaration dated May 5, 2015.

The timing was critical, because in the spring of 2011, the Libyan opposition was not formally recognized, and the direct supply of arms was not authorized. At that time, the CIA director was David Petraeus.

Manners testified before a grand jury investigating Turi prior to his indictment. Manners was an 18-year CIA officer who had previously been posted in Prague and Amman. At the time of his declaration, he said he was “the executive assistant to the deputy director of the National Security Agency."

Manners’ declaration supported statements made exclusively to Fox News by Turi about what President Obama's team and members of Congress knew about weapons flowing into the region during the chaotic Arab Spring of 2011.

"When this equipment landed in Libya, half went one way, and the half went the other way," Turi said, emphasizing that poor oversight, allowed individuals hostile to the United States to get arms.  "The half that went the other way is the half that ended up in Syria."

As part of Fox's ongoing investigation of the 2012 terrorist attack that killed Stevens, Foreign Service Officer Sean Smith, as well as former Navy Seals Ty Woods and Glen Doherty, Turi spoke exclusively to Fox News.

Turi was one of several thousand U.S. arms contractors licensed by the State Department to sell and move weapons around the world.

"I got involved in this business in the 1990s," Turi said. "I've been involved in all type of operations, regarding transportation, logistics, and liaising with those foreign governments."

Licensed arms contractors require painstaking compliance in order to obtain the necessary approvals set by strict U.S. government regulations. While Clinton served as secretary of state, American arms dealers were awarded a record number of export licenses to sell sophisticated weapons, military parts and technology internationally.

"That's actually been a huge, policy position, of the Obama administration," Celina Realuyo, a professor of national security at the Perry Center at the National Defense University, told Fox News in 2012.

Realuyo has served two presidents with expertise in tracking down money and weaponry used in what are called "dark networks" that can channel weapons to criminal and designated foreign terrorist organizations.

More than 86,000 licenses with a value of $44.3 billion were granted in 2011 . . .  a surge of more than $10 billion from the previous year.

In the spring of 2011, Turi says his high-level contacts both inside and outside of the U.S. government, encouraged him to explore options to arm the Libyan opposition as they tried to overthrow Qaddafi.  He says his associates included Manners, and that the government worked through private contractors to limit its own exposure.

As Fox News first reported, Clinton, in a heavily redacted, April 8, 2011, email released to the Benghazi Committee last year, expressed interest in arming rebels using contractors.

"FYI. The idea of using private security experts to arm the opposition should be considered," Clinton wrote, using her private email address. Significantly, the emails released by the State Department blacked out this line, but the version given to the Benghazi Select Committee was complete.

Turi got approval to sell arms to Qatar – which was apparently cover for sending weapons to Libya - in May, 2011. But in July 2011, his Arizona home was raided by federal agents.

"They came in the full body armor, and weapons and, they take my computers and my cellphones and that was it. That was the last time I saw them. And they've been chasing me all over the world for the past three years, speaking to associates of mine all over the United States and looking into my records and my past."

Turi believes he was being blamed for a program that went off the rails, much as Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, whose Internet film, “The Innocence of Muslims,” was initially blamed for the Benghazi attack.

"At some point, I may be that Internet video excuse,"  Turi told Fox News. "I don't know. But, it's really strange that the U.S. government would invest three years, a multi-year investigation, fly all over the world interviewing people, for an application."

In her only congressional testimony to date on Benghazi in January 2013, Clinton was asked by Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., about the flow of weapons.

"I will see what information is available," then Secretary Clinton ‎responded. "I don't have any information on that."


God bless,
JohnnyD

Voter ID

 

God bless,

JohnnyD