Did you know Obama runs a secret intelligence panel inside the White House? Members of Congress say they do not
Six people at the White House are driving America’s digital future by stealth executive orders
No wonder Silicon Valley wears out the White House carpet
(Jun. 02, 2016)—On Jan.22, 2009, Hillary Clinton signed a nondisclosure agreement promising to keep the nation’s secrets safe from foreign nations.
In obvious violation of this promise, Hillary hired Bryan Pagliano, an unqualified political operative, to set up a private www.clintonemail.com server in her Chappaqua, New York home. She proceeded to use this server for sensitive State Department business between 2009 and 2013—her entire tenure as Secretary of State.
On Mar. 20, 2013, Romanian hacker Guccifer was identified by USA Today as having hacked into Hillary Clinton adviser Sidney Blumenthal’s AOL email. Guccifer obtained emails Blumenthal exchanged with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton showed that she used a private, non-State Department email address. Guccifer then hacked Hillary’s server on multiple occasion, describing it as “easy;” understandable since Pagliano had no email security background.
On May 10, 2016, the Kremlin announced that it was debating whether to release the 20,000 emails they have hacked off of Hillary Clinton’s private server.
Despite this evidence, Hillary, the Justice and State Departments all assert vehemently that no laws were broken.
Hillary’s claim of unintentionally is misdirection – the standard is “knowingly, willfully, or negligently.”
However, Hillary is evidently counting on most non-legal people not understanding that distinction.
Hillary claims she did not intentionally compromise national secrets while using her personal email server. However, this assertion is reckless and deceptive, especially coming from an attorney like her who is experienced in such matters—someone the American public would tend to trust given her honored position in the government.
With national secrets "lack of due care" is the broadest standard for assessing liability. Negligent handling of national secrets is criminal, whether or not one intended to compromise them. By way of example, if your competitor steals your company’s confidential business plan after you left it inadvertently at the library, you are liable for the damages even if you did not mean to leave it.
Hillary agreed to Executive Order 12958, Sec. 5.7 Sanctions (“shall be subject to appropriate sanctions if they knowingly, willfully, or negligently: (1) disclose to unauthorized persons . . .”). PDF version.
Information Dictatorship Smoking Gun: Bill Clinton Executive Order 12958 (Apr. 17, 1995)
The “Washington Cartel” has been patiently laying the groundwork for their takeover of the digital world since Bill Clinton’s inauguration on Jan. 20, 1993. Remember, one of his first hires was Harvard professor turned World Bank economist Lawrence H. Summers who was in the process of ruining the collapsing Soviet economy with his reckless voucher privatization recommendations. This program evidently provided the seed funds for their grand digital takeover scheme.
Tied to Summers' hip were three figures to play prominent roles in the Obama Administration and the Silicon Valley social networking corruption: Sheryl K. Sandberg (Summers Treasury chief of staff, Gmail, now Facebook COO), Russian Yuri Milner (DST, Mail.ru, Facebook investor), and Marne L. Levine Deutch (Summers Harvard chief of staff, AOL email, Hillary and Obama policy adviser, Facebook VP of public policy, now Instagram COO).
Participants in Larry Summers' "Cloud" (of corruption)
Harvard, AOL mail, Obama, Bank bailout (T.A.R.P. / Summers), Hillary, Facebook, Instagram
Their smokescreen is “national security.” Look how they implemented the Patriot Act so quickly. Isn’t it amazing how these people had a 132-page act ready to go and signed into law 45 days after 9-11? Clearly, someone had drafted the Act and was ready for 9-11.
Every dictatorship in history has used national security as the excuse for their abuses. The last three American Administrations are no exception.
The “public-private partnership” perpetrators are close to accomplishing their goal of permanent control of the world’s digital communications infrastructure.
Case in point: Look at the noise certain of these cartel members are making in this 2016 election cycle with their ill-gotten billions contributed by Mark Zuckerberg, Peter Thiel, George Soros, The Clinton Foundation, Elon Musk, Larry Summers, Sheryl Sandberg, Marc Andreessen, Goldman Sachs and James W. Beyer.
Given that Bill and Hillary Clinton are married, and were married at the time Executive Order 12958 was signed, Hillary had a duty to disclose the conflicts of interest surrounding her signing the NDA when she became Secretary of State.
Section 13 of Hillary’s NDA makes Bill Clinton’s Executive Order 12958 signed 14 years earlier “controlling” over her handling of national secrets.
The order was undoubtedly drafted by Clinton’s top adviser on national security, James P. Chandler, III. Chandler was also drafting Clinton’s Economic Espionage Act, Trade Secrets Act and False Statements Accountability Act (all passed 18 months later on Oct. 11, 1996). Note that Subsection (b) of the False Statements Act made it legal to lie to Congress and the courts. See previous post.
ISCAP Information Dictatorship
Clinton’s order gave sweeping (de)classification powers to the President and certain agency heads. It also created the “Interagency Security Classification Appeals Panel” (ISCAP) in Section 5.5 comprised of:
- Secretary of State
- Secretary of Defense
- Attorney General
- NSA Director
- CIA Director
ISCAP handled (and still handles) all matters regarding national security classifications.
The order gave ISCAP the ability to reclassify information requested in Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, even if they were not classified previously.
In short, ISCAP was given dictatorial powers by Bill Clinton to handle the flow of all information within the government. And, within ISCAP, the Attorney General was given dictatorial powers to interpret the order, reporting only to the President.
Embedded FOIA stonewalling
This secret ISCAP dictatorship explains why Barack Obama issued a three-paragraph memo on Apr. 15, 2009 to his agencies ordering all FOIA requests and Congressional inquiries and subpoenas to first come to the White House counsel for review.
Who in America knows about this dictatorship panel at the White House?
We’ve asked many Members of Congress. They don’t know about it.
Hillary did not disclose her conflicts of interest with the master legal mind behind Bill’s intelligence and national security plans—James P. Chandler.
Considering the degree to which Chandler has continued to shape and influence national security and intelligence policy through the last three administrations, and considering the degree to which Barack Obama has continued to rely on Chandler in 2009 (and to this day), Hillary had a duty to disclose this intimate insider relationship to the American public, especially when one considers that the entire data flow of the United States hangs in the balance. Putting this much power and influence into the hands of one un-elected, unaccountable private person is unconscionable.
Absolutely no oversight by Congress of the secret White House ISCAP panel
This secret, dictatorial White House intelligence panel is absolutely counter to the balance of powers intent of the U.S. Constitutions. Congress has not even been informed of these non-enumerated powers, so it cannot provide oversight.
Hillary also knew that Obama’s coming Attorney General, Eric H. Holder, Jr. was given even greater dictatorial powers in overarching internal ISCAP legal authorities.
She also knew that fellow ISCAP members NSA, CIA and Department of Defense were exploiting Facebook and social networking companies for illegal mass data collection. She failed to disclose her intention to exploit that information for personal enrichment.
She and her fellow ISCAP panel members knew they relied on the social networking inventions of Columbus innovator, Leader Technologies. She did not disclose these conflicts.
According to NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, five months after Hillary signed her NDA, Facebook began feeding customer data to the NSA. Eight months later, on Sep. 26, 2009, Hillary wrote her first “communications services” contract with Facebook for 2010 “election winning templates.” See previous post.
Tampering in American elections is a violation of the Hatch Act. Interfering in the Leader v. Facebook patent infringement lawsuit that was in progress is obstruction of justice. She disclosed none of these conflicts.
The Obama administration wasted no time in stonewalling FOIA requests which is both a violation of general law and even Hillary's “controlling” Executive Order 12958, Sec. 1.8 (“In no case shall information be classified in order to: . . . prevent or delay the release of information that does not require protection in the interest of national security.”). To the extent that Hillary and the State Department participated in this stonewalling, she failed to disclose these conflicts.
On the one hand, one might argue that Hillary had no duty to disclose her conflicts of interest surrounding Executive Order 12958 in signing her NDA since she was not Secretary of State in 1995. However, she was the wife of the President and was being delegated near cabinet-level status over health care reform. Her influence then was unmistakable.
Hillary's intimate knowledge of this long-planned digital takeover plan is nothing short of racketeering at the highest levels of government and commerce.
Clearly, we have two branches of government that are out of control—Executive and Judiciary. The Judicial branch via the FISA Court is collaborating with ISCAP insiders to craft the results they want.
Congress needs to assert its authority and reign in these runaway branches of American government while we still have a Republic worth preserving.
* * *
Notice: This post may contain opinion. As with all opinion, it should not be relied upon without independent verification. Think for yourself. Photos used are for educational purposes only and were obtained from public sources. No claims whatsoever are made to any photo.
Click "N comments:" on the line just below this instruction to comment on this post. Alternatively, send an email with your comment to email@example.com and we'll post it for you. We welcome and encourage anonymous comments, especially from whisteblowers.