Clinton changes story, admits she didn’t have permission for secret email server

1 Comment

H/T Washington Times. 

It is no surprise that The Hildabeast does not recall.

Hillary Clinton admitted under oath this week that she doesn’t recall asking anyone for permission to use a secret server and email account during her time in the State Department, contradicting previous public pronouncements that she had received approval.

Mrs. Clinton said she didn’t recall seeing a 2011 warning about increased hacking attempts on senior department officials’ private accounts and that she didn’t actually write another warning that was sent under her name.

“Secretary Clinton states that she does not recall being advised, cautioned, or warned during her tenure as Secretary of State about hacking or attempted hacking of her e-mail account or the server that hosted her account,” she said in sworn testimony dated Monday and filed in federal court Thursday.

 A judge had ordered Mrs. Clinton to provide testimony as he decides whether the State Department fully complied with the Freedom of Information Act, which gives the public a right to see its public officials’ records — including emails that contain government business.

Mrs. Clinton for years foiled that law by using her secret account, which was tied to a server she kept at her home in New York, and which effectively shielded her emails from any sort of open records oversight. She returned some 30,000 messages in December 2014, nearly two years after she left government, and the FBI said it recovered thousands more that she failed to turn over.

Those are being released in batches, but Judicial Watch, a public interest law firm that has sued to get a look at all of the emails, is trying to get a full accounting of where the system broke down during Mrs. Clinton’s tenure.

Judicial Watch wanted to depose Mrs. Clinton in person, but Judge Emmet G. Sullivan rejected its request and said written responses would be enough.

Mrs. Clinton evaded answers to many of the 25 questions posed by Judicial Watch, saying they were outside the scope of the court case.

Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, said that showed “disdain for the rule of law.”

The answers she did give were carefully crafted and usually revealed little about her decision-making concerning the emails.

She has repeatedly maintained that her use of a secret system was “allowed,” but the department’s inspector general, the FBI and now Mrs. Clinton herself said she never asked whether that was true. In fact, the practice broke policy, department officials have said.

In an interview this summer, Mrs. Clinton said it was “recommended” that she use a personal email account.

In her testimony this week, she said that recommendation didn’t come from anyone in government but rather from former Secretary of State Colin Powell. In a 2009 email message, Mr. Powell said he did use a private account but warned Mrs. Clinton to be “very careful.”

Blaming Mr. Powell also contradicts what Mrs. Clinton told the FBI. She told investigators that Mr. Powell’s advice did not factor into her decision.

Some of Mrs. Clinton’s staff who knew about her secret account voiced concerns to their superiors, but Mrs. Clintonsaid nobody raised the issue with her, nor did she discuss it with anyone else.

“Secretary Clinton states that she does not recall participating in any communications before or during her tenure as Secretary of State concerning or relating to her decision to use a account to conduct official State Department business,” she said in the testimony.

She said that when she returned her messages to the government, she left it up to her attorneys to decide which ones were official business. She also said her attorneys were in charge of wiping her server clean, and she denied having “personal knowledge about the details of that process.”

Mrs. Clinton never told the official charged with storing her records about her secret arrangement and never thought to turn over her messages when she left the department in 2013.

She said she left it to her underlings to store her messages because she was often emailing them on their official accounts. But she admitted in her answers Thursday that she didn’t think about what would happen to messages she exchanged with those outside the department.

“She did not consider how e-mails she sent to or received from persons who did not have State Department e-mail accounts would be searched by the Department in response to FOIA requests,” she said.

Last year, Mrs. Clinton testified to Congress that at least 90 percent of her messages went to other State Departmentemployees so she was sure they were being stored. That number has since been challenged, including in an analysis conducted by The Washington Times.

In her sworn testimony Mrs. Clinton refused to say where she got the 90 percent number. She said the information was protected by attorney-client privilege.

Some of those messages to people outside the department have created problems for Mrs. Clinton, including her exchanges with family confidant Sidney Blumenthal, who regularly offered his thoughts on how Mrs. Clinton should approach world hot spots.


GOP AGs warn Dems that if climate skeptics can be prosecuted for ‘fraud,’ so can alarmists 

Leave a comment

Maybe this will stop the leftist drive to sue people who disagree with them on globull warming.

If Democratic attorneys general can pursue climate-change skeptics for fraud, then also at risk of prosecution are climate alarmists whose predictions of global doom have failed to materialize.

Source: GOP AGs warn Dems that if climate skeptics can be prosecuted for ‘fraud,’ so can alarmists – Washington Times

Lawless are getting PAID!

Leave a comment

This is from The Black Sphere.

This shows why the tax code needs to be simplified and these tax credits eliminated.

In the Land of Milk and Money, the lawless get paid. Fines and penalties are for those who follow the law, Silly!

That’s why in ObamaVille tax incentives are given to illegals.

Every one of the banditos entering our country since 2009 have been given Individual Tax Identification Numbers. And as confirmed Tuesday by IRS Commissioner John Koskinen to the Washington Times, those given amnesty can retroactively claim Earned Income Tax Incentives, if they have been filing.

This is in addition to the billions the IRS already hands out to illegals through child tax credits.×9&widgetId=2&trackingGroup=69017

The EITC isn’t the only tax credit to be ensnared in the immigration debate. The IRS already pays out billions of dollars a year to illegal immigrants under a program known as the additional child tax credit.

The IRS says the law is vague on who is eligible for the child credit, so to be on the safe side they pay it out to illegal immigrants.

Backers argue that the children claimed for the child tax credit are likely U.S. citizens, even if their parents are here illegally, and so it would be unfair to strip the money.

In 2010, the government paid out $4.2 billion to illegal immigrants who claimed the child tax credit, the IRS’s inspector general found.

Yo quiero Taco Bell! Ready to make a run for the border!


Liberal Harvard Faculty Learns a Hard Lesson About Obamacare


This is from Patriot UpDate.

The liberals Obamacare chickens are coming home to roost.


photo credit





I didn’t know whether to laugh or cry when I read this headline in the Washington Times: “Harvard faculty, previously pro-Obamacare, up in arms over health cost hikes.”

On one hand I wanted to laugh at these liberal professors—every one of whom is an Obama supporter and was, until recently, an Obamacare supporter.

On the other hand I wanted to shake my head in disgust at their naivety and ask, “How could so many supposedly bright people be so dense?

People who are not blinded by political bias or blind party loyalty have been warning Americans about higher insurance premiums from the outset.” In the final analysis, rather than laugh or cry I decided to use this column to give the faculty members at Harvard some badly needed reality checks.

The first reality the Harvard faculty failed to grasp is that supporting Barack Obama’s campaign for the purpose of making a socio-cultural statement about race in America without even asking if he would make a good president was just plain dumb.

Dumb is hardly a word one would expect to see applied to Harvard professors, but dumb is the perfect descriptor in this case because it is certainly dumb for smart people to allow their judgment to be clouded by political bias and their critical thinking skills to be overshadowed by leftwing presuppositions.

Even a high school dropout knows that the job of President of the United States is too important to be used for making a cultural statement; no matter how worthy that statement might be.

Barack Obama was obviously unprepared for the job of President of the United States.

In spite of this, liberals in higher education such as the Harvard professors in question supported Obama enthusiastically and without the reservations thinking people should have had.

Now they are angry because the ill-prepared president they supported in two elections has implemented an ineffective, ill-conceived, expensive healthcare policy.

How can these professors now claim to be surprised? Incompetent presidents are going to implement ill-conceived policies. After all, they are incompetent.

Here is another reality check for the disgruntled Harvard professors. When people knowingly allow themselves to be lied to, they have no right to complain when the lies come back to haunt them.

This is precisely what has happened to the angry Harvard professors. The president these professors so enthusiastically supported lied to them, and they should have known he was lying all along.

One of the characteristics of bright, highly-educated people is that they have critical thinking skills. Consequently, they are supposed to be able to detect when they are being lied to and when common sense, logic, and reason are at odds with political rhetoric.

The angry professors in question have these skills, but when it comes to the rhetoric of Barack Obama they simply shut them down and do not use them.

You see, liberal elites in America had to know that Barack Obama was lying about the Affordable Care Act (ACA), but they made the mistake of thinking Obama was lying to the rest of us, not to them. True liberals that they are the Harvard professors did not mind the president lying to lesser beings—the rest of us—but they became incensed when they finally figured out he had lied to them too.

When a liberal president lies to the rest of America to advance his leftwing agenda, liberal elites such as the angry Harvard professors accept his action as a noble lie—lying for what they consider a good cause. But when they are lied to, the president’s distortions apparently lose their nobility.

Another reality check the disgruntled Harvard professors should observe is that supporting presidential policies simply because you like the president in question is like allowing inappropriate behavior from some of your students because you like them.

As the angry Harvard professors have now learned, bad policy is bad policy no matter who proposes it. Had the ACA been proposed by Republicans, these same professors would have rejected it out of hand.

In fact, they would have been among the first to point out the glaring discrepancies between what was promised and what was obviously going to happen. But political bias is a powerful force—as powerful as addictive drugs to some—and liberal elites, caught up in the clutches of political bias, have allowed their judgment to be clouded concerning Barack Obama and his presidency.

Another reality check for the Harvard professors who have been stung by the president’s ill-conceived healthcare policy has to do with one of the most sacred principles of liberals: spending other people’s money while refusing to spend their own.

When it comes to paying the price for big government and government interference in the private sector, liberals are no different than the rest of us.

If other working Americans have to pay higher insurance premiums, why shouldn’t these liberal elitists on Harvard’s faculty. But this expectation of sharing the burden is a foreign concept to liberal elites.

For the angry Harvard professors, Obamacare was just fine as long as the costs associated with it applied to others. But once they learned that their insurance premiums would increase just like the premiums of everyone else who already had health insurance, the ACA became personal—and unacceptable.

My message to these Harvard professors who are angry at Barack Obama is simple: Stop whining. You are finally learning that there is a price to pay for your blind loyalty to a liberal president.

If your health insurance premiums have skyrocketed, it’s your fault and you deserve the higher premiums. After all, what did you think was going to happen? You are all highly educated professionals who are supposed to be critical thinkers, yet you allowed yourselves to be lied to, exploited, and hoodwinked by a president who took advantage of your liberal bias.

Those of us who do not blindly and adoringly support President Obama like mindless sheep have been trying to tell you what was going to happen for two years now. You refused to listen, now you are paying the price

. Don’t despair, though. There is hope if you are willing to change. If you will send me your mailing addresses, I will forward a stack of voter registration forms. Just check the box that says “Republican” and drop it off at your local election supervisor’s office.

Illinois proves gun laws are racist

Leave a comment

This is from Personal Liberty.

Illinois is the land of enlightened liberals like Barack Obama, Richard Dailey and  “RahmThe Ballerina” Emanuel.


Under Illinois law, a person seeking to obtain a concealed carry license — and, thus, be “legally” entitled to protect himself in that state — has to first fork over $650, plus take a 16-hour training course that requires time on a range.

Illinois has the most expensive registration fee in the country. Getting a license is an expensive and burdensome proposition. And even then, obtaining “approval” is a tricky proposition, at best. The Cook County Sheriff has said he would object to as many applications as possible so as to send them to a panel that can deny them without explanation. But it’s easier to get a license if you’re white.

The Washington Times has dug into license data. It shows that if you are black and live in a violent and dangerous neighborhood, you are very unlikely to be able to obtain a permit.

Demographic data shows that 90 percent of Illinois’ 73,714 active concealed carry licenses are held by whites who live in middle-class, predominately white neighborhoods with low crime rates. Only 8 percent went to blacks statewide. Of those, fewer than 1 percent went to people living in the poorest ZIP codes.

Illinois residents told The Times that the disproportion boils down to cost. “In these gangbang neighborhoods, people can’t afford the license. They’re making choices between food and medicine, and they can’t even guarantee they’ll get even that,” said Shawn Gowder, 49, who lives in Chicago’s Auburn Gresham neighborhood on the South Side, where two homicides have taken place in the past 30 days. “We need to arm ourselves and protect ourselves from these gangbangers, but we just can’t afford to do it.”

In crime-ridden neighborhoods of Chicago — where the most homicides, robberies, assaults, thefts and drug charges are recorded and where the populations are 98 percent black and the median income is at or below the poverty line — concealed carry license holders almost nonexistent.

But if people living in those neighborhoods are able to overcome the prohibitive cost of the permit, they likely rely on public transportation to get around. That makes the training portion of the process unattainable. It’s against Illinois law to carry an unlicensed gun on public transportation.

So Illinois, home to Chicago — which carries the dubious title of the nation’s “Murder Capital” after tallying the most homicides in the U.S. in 2012 — has set up barriers that deny poor black people an option of legally defending themselves. Were there laws similarly denying low-income blacks the option of performing any other legal act in this manner, there would be a huge outcry from the political elites. But because the elites want low-income blacks to remain dependent slaves, they don’t say a word about this discrepancy.

It’s likely that you don’t know that the first U.S. gun laws sprang up in the South following the Civil War in an attempt to bar blacks from possessing guns. Today’s gun control laws do much the same thing.

Negroes and the Gun: A Winchester “in every Black home”

1 Comment

This is from the Washington Times.

This articles makes, a bold statement about gun ownership

and the Second Amendment is about self defense.



Surveying the landscape in the summer of 1892, Ida B. Wells advised, that “the Winchester rifle deserved a place of honor in every Black home.” This was no empty rhetorical jab. She was advancing a considered personal security policy and specifically referencing two recent episodes where armed Blacks saved their neighbors from lynch mobs.

Twice within one month, lynch mobs formed, one in Paducah, Kentucky, another in Jacksonville, Florida. Square in their sights were hapless Negroes who were on track to the same fate as many others before them. But in both cases, the mobs were thwarted by armed Blacks, though the record demands some speculation about how many of their guns were actually Winchester rifles. Other similar episodes in Mississippi and Georgia confirmed for Ida Wells the importance of armed self-defense in an environment where the idea of relying on the state for personal security or anything else was an increasingly absurd proposition.

For Wells and for many of her contemporaries — the “New Negroes” of the late nineteenth century — the Winchester Rifle was a potent rhetorical tool. At a meeting of the Afro-American Press Association, fiery editor of the New York Age, T. Thomas Fortune, spurred by a recent spate of lynchings erupted, “We have cringed and crawled long enough. I don’t want any more ‘good niggers.’ I want ‘bad niggers.’ It’s the ‘bad nigger’ with the Winchester who can defend his home and child and wife.” W. A. Pledger of the Atlanta Age followed Fortune on the dais and affirmed the sentiments of the group that terrorists were “afraid to lynch us where they know the Black man is standing behind the door with a Winchester.”

But the Winchester was more than just a rhetorical tool of militant journalists. In Memphis, after the lynching of Ida Wells’ good friend Tom Moss, Reverend Taylor Nightingale pressed his congregation all to buy Winchesters as a practical response to the surrounding threats. And from the Black settlements of the west comes the report that “the colored men of Oklahoma Territory mean business. They have an exalted ideal of their own rights and liberties and they dare to maintain them. In nearly every cabin visited was a modern Winchester oiled and ready for use.”

This sort of preparedness was rewarded in 1891 when Edwin McCabe, an early advocate of Black emigration to the American west was attacked by a gang intent on discouraging Blacks from staking claims in the opening Oklahoma Territory. Blacks had been run out of several staging towns. But in Langston City, more than two thousand armed Blacks assembled in preparation for the land rush. After sporadic threats, McCabe was accosted and fired on. He was rescued by a superior force of Black men wielding Winchester rifles.

Skeptics may worry that the rhetoric of militant journalists and the armed preparations of bourgeoning Black capitalists fails to account for the full spectrum of attitudes within the community. This is fair.

So it helps to know that beyond Reverend Taylor Nightingale, other more staid members of the Black clergy were sympathetic to Ida B. Wells’ sentiments about the Winchester. AME Zion Bishop Alexander Walters exhorted, “after the late outrages in Georgia and South Carolina it becomes necessary that we organize for self-protection.” AME Bishop Henry McNeal Turner was explicit about the tools that this would require, urging Blacks to “get guns Negroes, keep them loaded, and may God give you good aim when you shoot.”

The unfolding tradition of arms during this period is easy to caricature. The “Gay Nineties” yielded about two lynchings a week. It is easy in this context to proceed with simplistic images of Blacks either cowering in fear or desperately clutching guns. But then as now, the reality of the Black experience was far more diverse than the caricature would allow.

Even during the bleakest of times, armed Black men and women carved out lives that defy modern expectations. Living and thriving in the American west, US Marshal Bass Reeves, “Black Mary” Fields, Brit Johnson, Willie Kennard, George Goldsby and “Nigger Jim” Kelly, stood and fought and prevailed against expectations. They enrich the tradition with episodes of grit and bravery that endeared them to many of their white contemporaries and raised some of them to legend.

And even back east, in the story of Buddie Shang, the kindly uncle who killed a white attacker with a shotgun blast, we see that armed self-defense by Blacks did not necessarily spark violent backlash or “legal lynchings.” In the winter of 1890, Buddie Shang was arrested and tried by an all-white jury that deliberated just three minutes before returning its verdict. Quick deliberations were familiar in cases like this, often signaling results that reflect the worst tribal impulses. But for Buddie Shang it took only three minutes for twelve white men to declare him not guilty.

Buddie Shang and many others show that the Black tradition of arms, like any cultural phenomenon, grew up from the words and deeds of countless individual souls who, even under the common burden of racism, still had richly different experiences.

For many of these people, we know something of their story but less about their thoughts. For the philosophical grounding of the Black tradition of arms, we look more to the literate, leadership class. And here we might worry how much the rhetoric really matched practical commitment. This worry is diminished by the evidence that many in the leadership class truly did walk it as they talked it. As tomorrow’s post will show, this is vividly demonstrated in the words and deeds of America’s preeminent Black intellectual, W.E.B. Dubois, who paced the floor following the 1906 Atlanta race riot, with “a Winchester double-barreled shotgun and two dozen rounds of shells filled with buckshot.” And within the bourgeoning leadership class of the early twentieth century, Dubois is just the tip of the story.


1 Comment

This is from Breitbarts Big Government.

Yes Virginia elections have consequences.

How many potential companies will avoid Virginia because

Terry the punk McAuliffe’s future tax increases?


Until Virginia Governor-elect Terry McAuliffe (D) was elected on November 5, Beretta USA had the Old Dominion on a short list of states in which it could build a new factory.

The USA side of Beretta has been based in Maryland, but Governor Martin O’Malley‘s (D) gun control push convinced them to move to a more gun-friendly climate.

According to The Washington Times, Beretta already “has a distribution center in Spotsylvania, VA,” so building the new factory in the state made sense–when Virginia had a pro-gun governor.

Beretta USA’s general counsel Jeff Reh said, “The anti-gun ads that McAuliffe ran in northern Virginia were particularly offensive. And the fact that he could gain a voting advantage by doing so caused us additional concern.”

Red added: “All this was a real disappointment because of the great pro-gun and pro-business response we received from the Commonwealth and local political and business leaders throughout our search process in [the state].”

Until McAuliffe was elected VA was “one of six finalist locations” being considered by Beretta executives.


Southern Discomfort: U.S. Army seeks removal of Lee, ‘Stonewall’ Jackson honors

Leave a comment

This is from The Washington Times.

This is outrageous Gen. Robert E. Lee and Gen. Thomas  

Johnathan ” Stonewall Jackson were great tacticians.

This history revision bullshi* has gone too far.

ILLUSTRATION Confederate Gen. Thomas Jonathan ‘Stonewall’ Jackson (L) and Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee

Revisionist history would remove portraits of Confederate legends.

The U.S. Army War College, which molds future field generals, has begun discussing whether it should remove its portraits of Confederate generals — including those of Robert E. Lee and Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson.

Nestled in rural Pennsylvania on the 500-acre Carlisle Barracks, the war college is conducting an inventory of all its paintings and photographs with an eye for rehanging them in historical themes to tell a particular Army story.

PHOTOS: Top 10 handguns in the U.S.

During the inventory, an unidentified official — not the commandant, Maj. Gen. Anthony A. Cucolo III — asked the administration why the college honors two generals who fought against the United States, college spokeswoman Carol Kerr said.

“I do know at least one person has questioned why we would honor individuals who were enemies of the United States Army,” Ms. Kerr said. “There will be a dialogue when we develop the idea of what do we want the hallway to represent.”

She said one faculty member took down the portraits of Lee and Jackson and put them on the floor as part of the inventory process. That gave rise to rumors that the paintings had been removed.

“This person was struck by the fact we have quite a few Confederate images,” she said, adding that the portraits were rehung on a third-floor hallway. “[Lee] was certainly not good for the nation. This is the guy we faced on the battlefield whose entire purpose in life was to destroy the nation as it was then conceived. … This is all part of an informed discussion.”

It is the kind of historical cleansing that could spark an Army-wide debate: Lee’s portrait adorns the walls of other military installations and government buildings.

Two portraits of Lee are on display at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, N.Y.: In the Cadet Mess Hall is a painting of Lee when he was superintendent as an Army captain. A portrait of Lee in full Confederate regalia hangs on the second floor of Jefferson Hall, the campus library.

Opened in 1901 to study the lessons of war, the Army War College is a history class and modern warfare symposium for lieutenant colonels and colonels who know that a diploma from the institution helps their chances with the promotion board. The college graduates more than 300 U.S. officers, foreign students and civilians in two classes each year.

Lee’s life story is full of personal conflict.

Born and raised in Virginia, the son of a Revolutionary War hero and governor, Lee graduated from the Army’s premier undergraduate school, West Point, and returned as its superintendent. Serving as a combat engineer, he distinguished himself in the Mexican-American War, during which he was wounded and received several battlefield promotions. Yet he broke with the Union and agreed to lead the Army of Northern Virginia for the Confederate States of America.

Jackson, who also received battlefield promotions during the Mexican-American War, is another West Point graduate.

In 1975, Congress enacted a joint resolution reinstating Lee’s U.S. citizenship in what could be considered a final act to heal Civil War wounds. The resolution praised Lee’s character and his work to reunify the nation. It noted that six months after surrendering to Gen. Ulysses S. Grant, Lee swore allegiance to the Constitution and to the Union.

“This entire nation has long recognized the outstanding virtues of courage, patriotism and selfless devotion to duty of General R.E. Lee,” the joint resolution stated.

President Ford traveled to Arlington HouseLee’s former home in Virginia, to sign the resolution into law on Aug. 5, 1975.

Ford quoted from a letter that Lee wrote to a former Confederate soldier: “This war, being at an end, the Southern States having laid down their arms, and the questions at issue between them and the Northern States having been decided, I believe it to be the duty of everyone to unite in the restoration of the country and the reestablishment of peace and harmony.”

Ford said: “As a soldier, Gen. Lee left his mark on military strategy. As a man, he stood as the symbol of valor and of duty. As an educator, he appealed to reason and learning to achieve understanding and to build a stronger nation. The course he chose after the war became a symbol to all those who had marched with him in the bitter years towards Appomattox.”
Read more:


After the 1st Amendment???

1 Comment

Hat Tip To Old NFO.

This post will scare the Hell out of you.

If it does not better check your pulse.

Ran across this one in the Washington Times…

WASHINGTON, December 4, 2013 — How far will President Obama go to control what we see and hear? How about removing First Amendment protections from FOX News or even from MSNBC, ABC, CNN, CBS or NBC. Maybe no free speech or freedom of the press for The Washington Times nor The Washington Post nor The New York Times or any other major media? Obama would justify it by claiming they are all tainted because they seek to profit from the news business.

Read the whole thing HERE
Going after the 1st Amendment rights for Hobby Lobby for ‘religious freedom’ by saying a for profit corporation does not have those rights…

If this gets through, how far behind will the thought police be on the web??? Especially if you have ‘ads’ on your site…

The more I see/hear about the crap this administration is pulling with ‘selective’ enforcement of laws, putting regulations in place with NO oversight, and the way things are being run (or not as the case may be)…

It literally raises the hairs on the back of my neck…  I thought Slick Willie was bad, but I’m beginning to believe BO is a PATHOLOGICAL NARCISSIST…

And the truly sad point is that everyone in the MSM is enabling him…  Regardless of the situation, it’s always about HIM, not about anyone else.  When you look at what got put out on the Mandela, in his little speech BO managed to reference Mandela eight times. His references to himself?  14 times…

He did the same thing on the Kennedy 50th…

If the administration gets ‘control’ of the media and the web where will we be???  I don’t have a good answer.  But I’ll bet we’ll all be charged with racism, or terrorism or something to shut us down…  And if they make those felonies???

There go the guns too…


Obama Gestapo Raids Reporter’s Home, Takes Notes

Leave a comment

This is from Godfather Politics.

Who will be the next victim of the Obama Gestapo?

I can see gun owners and The Tea Party as the next victims. 

I also see retired military I the cross hairs also.

When Maryland police and federal agents raided Washington Times investigative reporter Audrey Hudson’s home, they were supposed to be looking for guns but wound up taking her personal notes and papers she had obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.

Hudson had previously written stories exposing problems in Homeland Security’s Federal Air Marshal Service.

Some of the papers that were taken in the predawn raid by agents in full body armor pertained to Hudson’s sources and research in the air marshals stories.

The warrant used by the police and federal agents said they were at Hudson’s house to look for unregistered firearms and a “potato gun” allegedly owned by her husband, Paul Flanagan, who is a Coast Guard employee. The warrant made no mention of any notes or documents to be seized.

A Coast Guard agent was present during the raid, but Flanagan has not been charged with any crime since the Aug. 6 raid. Flanagan has a criminal record from the mid-1980s relating to the illegal possession of firearms.

Times Editor John Solomon said Friday the Times is preparing legal action over the unlawful seizure of Hudson’s notes and documents.

“While we appreciate law enforcement’s right to investigate legitimate concerns,” Solomon said, “there is no reason for agents to use an unrelated gun case to seize the First Amendment protected materials of a reporter. This violates the very premise of a free press, and it raises additional concerns when one of the seizing agencies was a frequent target of the reporter’s work. … Homeland’s conduct in seizing privileged reporters’ notes and Freedom of Information Act documents raises serious Fourth Amendment issues, and our lawyers are preparing an appropriate legal response.”

Maryland police declined comment except to say the documents were under review. The Coast Guard issued a statement admitting the documents were seized but denying that anything was done improperly.

Hudson said that during the raid, Coast Guard investigator Miguel Bosch, who formerly worked for the air marshal service, asked her if she was the same Audrey Hudson who had written “the air marshal stories” for the Times.

The agents seized several small arms during the raid. Hudson said she didn’t even realize until almost a month later that the agents had seized five file folders with her notes and documents.

Attorney David Fischer, who has been retained by Hudson and her husband, said, “Obviously, the warrant is about a gun, nothing about reporters notes. It would be a blatant constitutional violation to take that stuff if the search warrant didn’t specifically say so. … This is a situation where they picked very specifically through her stuff and took documents that the Coast Guard, or the Department of Homeland Security, would be very interested in.”

Hudson said that while her husband has a record from more than two decades ago relating to firearms, she believes her notes may have been the real target of the raid.

“They tore my office apart more than any other room in my house,” she said, adding that the agents didn’t take any non-TSA-related documents.

“I had a box full of [Department of Defense] notes. They didn’t touch those,” she said.

Eventually, the documents were returned to Hudson, but only after Bosch said he had distributed copies to officials in the TSA for “clearance.”

“Essentially, the files that included the identities of numerous government whistleblowers were turned over to the same government agency and officials who they were exposing for wrongdoing,” Hudson said.

The stories Hudson wrote about the air marshals date back to 2005, under the Bush Administration,  so this is a bureaucratic vendetta that has been simmering for eight years.

As they say, revenge is a dish that is best served cold. It’s difficult ever to say who’s really behind activities like this that are so blatantly illegal and so clearly targeted because the culprits are protected behind an opaque wall of bureaucracy and government.

Is it possible Bosch transferred from the air marshals to the Coast Guard, spied the name of Hudson’s husband on a list somewhere and seized an opportunity? A one-man vendetta seems unlikely.

Rather, this seems like the product of the Obama Administration’s culture of paranoia, revenge and official intimidation of Americans who cross the bureaucracy. It fits seamlessly into the pattern of accessing reporters’ phone records, shunning certain news organizations and using the IRS to investigate people and groups who rub the Administration the wrong way.

The government that thinks it rules its citizens and not vice versa is by definition a tyranny. That increasingly seems to be the case with our federal government.

Read more:


Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: