A New View of Terror Threats Revealed in The Latest Dump of Hacked Clinton Emails.

Thanks to the Wikileaks dump of thousands of emails and transcripts related to Hillary Clinton, we have learned the former Secretary of State has both a ‘public and private’ position on many matters.

From a security standpoint, I was interested to learn what details may have been withheld from the public regarding the safety of our nation. As it turns out, there are a few bits of information that are interesting and noteworthy.

Clinton Says Iran Can Attack United States from Latin America
Wilileaks has released the transcripts of three off-the-record speeches Clinton delivered to Goldman Sachs in 2013 for $675,000. These speeches reveal new details regarding Iran—details not previously acknowledged by Clinton to the public. In these speeches, Clinton speaks of Iran’s ability to terrorize the United States through Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) operatives as well as through their proxy Hezbolla.

She admitted that even without the nuclear program, the presence of Iran, the IRGC, and its proxies, which include the Shiite narco-terrorist group Hezbollah, would still pose a threat to the United States.

Clinton suggests bombing the Iranian facilities as an “option” to prevent the Shiite regime from developing a nuclear weapon in a speech to Goldman Sachs on June 4, 2013 and elaborated further about the threat Iran, the IRGC, and Hezbolla pose to the United States in a separate speech on October 24, 2013.

June 4 Speech

“We have to bomb the facilities. They act as though there would be no consequences either predicted or unpredicted. Of course there would be, and you already are dealing with a regime that is the principal funder and supplier of terrorism in the world today…

If we had a map up behind us you would be able to see Iranian sponsored terrorism directly delivered by Iranians themselves, mostly through the Revolutionary Guard Corps, the operatives…or other proxies from to Latin America to Southeast Asia.”

October 24 Speech

“So it’s a wicked problem, as we like to say, because Iran is not only troubling because of its nuclear program, although that’s the foremost threat, it’s the primary conductor and exporter of terrorism.

I mean, if you had a big map here behind us, literally from North America to Southeast Asia, there are so many thoughts, so many bombs, so many arrests that are all traced back to the Iranian revolutionary guard…”

In the last week, the USS Mason has been fired upon by Houthi rebels in Yemen in the Gulf of Aden three separate times–though all intelligence experts attribute this aggression to Iran via the IRGC. It is believed the rebels lack the sophistication and weapons expertise to fire missiles without IRGC assistance.

Clinton Says Syrian Refugees Streaming into Jordan Pose Security Threat
In a speech to the Jewish United Fund in Chicago on October 28, 2013, for which Clinton was paid $400,000, she expresses concern that jihadists from Syria are mixing in with refugees as they flee to Jordan.

October 28 Speech

“…there’s a discussion going on now across the region to try to see where there might be common ground to deal with the threat posed by extremism and particularly with Syria which has everyone quite worried, Jordan because it’s on their border and they have hundreds of thousands of refugees and they can’t possibly vet all those refugees so they don’t know if, you know, jihadists are coming in along with legitimate refugees. Turkey for the same reason.”

During Clinton’s campaign she has called for the United States to accept 65,000 Syrian refugees per year, claiming that “vigilant” screening and “vetting” of “refugees from Syria, guided by the best judgment of our security and diplomatic professionals,” will be sufficient to safeguard American citizens from “jihadists coming in along with legitimate refugees.”

Clinton’s public campaign assertions are at odds with her private concerns over the ability to vet refugees and are also contradictory to statements made by security officials within our own government who have acknowledged there is no way to thoroughly vet refugees—most of whom have no documentation.

Concern Massive Foreign Donors to the Clinton Foundation Would Impact Foreign Policy
An email sent by Bill Clinton’s personal chief of staff Tina Flournoy, in February 2015 to Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign chairman John Podesta informing him that “all” donations from “foreign governments” were “in” raises serious questions about how Clinton would govern—especially in light of the pay to play allegations stemming from her tenure as Secretary of State.

The endowment Flournoy references is the Clinton Foundation’s fund set up to help financially sustain the global charity, should Hillary Clinton win the White House in November. Flournoy’s email to Podesta coincided with news reports about the origin of the Clinton Foundation’s quarter billion dollar endowment.

Flournoy’s “foreign government donors” email predates Clinton Cash revelations about how Hillary Clinton continued to break her promise to the Obama administration that she would disclose all of the Clinton Foundation’s funding sources.

After Hillary Clinton’s departure from State in February, 2013, the endowment grew from $20 million to $250 million. Reason for the rapid growth of the Clinton Foundation’s endowment has been attributed to Dennis Cheng, the charity’s former chief development officer who is now the national finance director for Clinton’s presidential campaign.

According to the Wall Street Journal, many of the contributions that make up the Clinton Foundation’s $250 million endowment came from foreign governments, including Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates and Oman who contributed up to $35 million each.

In separate leaked emails, Clinton acknowledges both Saudi Arabia and Qatar are privately funding ISIS, while publicly condemning their actions. It is noteworthy that Clinton, on behalf of the foundation, accepted generous gifts from these nations. Given the charity’s ratings for ineffective use of funds, it is unlikely these donations were were purely for humanitarian purposes.

Leave a Reply

1 comment

  1. Steven Cunningham

    Good article!