By Paul Brandus | The Week

Thanks to a bombshell report from ABC News, GOP accusations that the White House politicized a tragedy no longer seem so unsubstantiated

ABC News reports that the documents were heavily edited by the State Department. And not just edited, but censored: State requested that references to Ansar al-Sharia — tied to al Qaeda — be deleted. It also requested that references to CIA warnings about terror threats in Benghazi in the months preceding the attack be deleted as well. (Read the whole ABC story here.)

Rewind to November 28. Here’s what White House press secretary Jay Carney told us at that day’s press briefing:

Those talking points originated from the intelligence community (IC). They reflect the IC’s best assessments of what they thought had happened. The White House and the State Department have made clear that the single adjustment (emphasis added) that was made to those talking points by either of those two institutions were changing the word ‘consulate’ to ‘diplomatic facility’ because ‘consulate’ was inaccurate.

And Carney just two days ago stuck to this story, telling us: 

The only edits made by anyone here at the White House were stylistic and nonsubstantive. They corrected the description of the building or the facility in Benghazi from consulate to diplomatic facility and the like. And ultimately, this all has been discussed and reviewed and provided in enormous levels of detail by the administration to congressional investigators, and the attempt to politicize the talking points, again, is part of an effort to, you know, chase after what isn’t the substance here.

Carney’s phrase “here at the White House” may be accurate in the physical sense, but in the broader context there’s no question he was referring to the Obama administration at large. And as Stephen Hayes of The Weekly Standard — which first published some of the email traffic between the White House and State Department on this — charged, “senior Obama administration officials knowingly misled the country about what happened.”

So who at the State Department was involved in changing — and censoring — the talking points? According to one email, spokesperson Victoria Nuland — who reported to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton — expressed specific concern about this particular CIA talking point:

The Agency has produced numerous pieces on the threat of extremists linked to al-Qa’ida in Benghazi and eastern Libya. These noted that, since April, there have been at least five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi by unidentified assailants, including the June attack against the British Ambassador’s convoy. We cannot rule out the individuals has previously surveilled the U.S. facilities, also contributing to the efficacy of the attacks. [Via ABC News]

Is there a White House connection? ABC notes that in a Sept. 14 email — two days before Rice went on TV — Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes said the State Department’s concerns needed to be addressed.
“We must make sure that the talking points reflect all agency equities, including those of the State Department,” Rhodes noted.
The final talking points eventually given to Rice reflected State’s concerns, but Carney told us that it’s all on the up-and-up because the changes were signed off on by the CIA.

There’s a meatpacking-like quality to all this. You don’t really want to know how your hamburger is processed, do you? The administration’s defense — and it’s looking thinner than ice on a late spring pond — is that government bureaucracy is messy and multi-layered and that’s a big part of why Rice said what she did.
Benghazi occurred seven weeks before election day. The administration’s strategy was simple: Downplay the terror attack, change the narrative, and run out the clock. And that’s what it did.

But now the dam has burst. Carney’s “here at the White House” comment has essentially thrown Clinton under the bus. Republicans, who leaked the edited emails to Karl and Hayes, have succeeded on two fronts: They’ve got the administration on the defensive over Benghazi, and they’ve weakened the Democrat’s most formidable 2016 candidate.

It seems that after all that digging, Republicans have found their pony at last.

Related articles

• Carney Claims on Changing #Benghazi Talking Points at Odds With the Facts (speaker.gov)
• White House slams ‘attempts to politicize’ Benghazi (politico.com)
• Obama administration e-mails raise new questions on Benghazi (cnn.com)
• Benghazi Talking Points Changed 12 Times (restart.typepad.com)
• ABC Exclusive: Benghazi Talking Points Underwent 12 Revisions, Scrubbed of Terror Reference (rubinoworld.com)
• ABC: Benghazi talking points went through 12 revisions, scrubbed of terror reference (hotair.com)
• Benghazi Talking Points Changed 12 Times By Obama Regime, Scrubbed Of Terror References (thedaleygator.wordpress.com)
• ABC Finds Benghazi Talking Points Extensively Edited by State Dept. (nationalreview.com)

Reblogged from We the People of the United States:

 ©Bridgette@WTPOTUS 2013

Al Hendershot, ObamaHustle blogger, Raided By FBI!!

4

His Computer Containing Evidence of  Obama-Fraud 

Was  Removed and  Taken For Days!

4

4

Our friend and diligent researcher and the person responsible for exposing several of  Obama's fraudulent activities  in several venues was interviewed, hand-cuffed and had his property removed by the FBI.     Al Hendershot  found Obama's alias of  Harrison J.

Read more… 888 more words

On April 10, 2013 the FBI showed up at my front door.  When I answered the door they told me who they were and that they wanted to speak to me about activities with / about the exposed website that was posting information about Muller, Holder, and Obama.

http://web.archive.org/web/20130314220223/http://exposed.su/

Well, obviously, I have nothing to hide so I gave them my computer.  I was also handcuffed while they were talking to me.

Two days later I get a phone call from the FBI telling me that I am not in trouble and that I have nothing to worry about in connection to my activities with others and what I am writing about in my blog www.theobamahustle.wordpress.com  On the 12th I go by the FBI office with a witness, just in case, to pick up my property and again they tell me, “that I am not in trouble and that I have nothing to worry about in connection to my activities with others and what I am writing about in my blog”.

When they were at my house they, the FBI secured my personal information as well such as my SSN and other personal information.  I have no doubt they investigated me out thoroughly and also investigated at what my activities have been in connection to the Obama fraud evidence and others as well.

Later on in the day I received some phone calls from people that I have been working with on the Obama issue.   They, the people that I spoke with said that my activities with the “Cold Case Posse” and my postings on Obama in The Obama Hustle along with the evidence that I have collected on him and his family probably had something to do with my visit from the FBI.

I have not heard of any others being visited by the Feds as it pertains to the exposed website.  In my discussions on Friday we came to the conclusion that this is very interesting in that there must be some people that are worried over what information might be available against the anointed and protected one from his lies being exposed.

I will not be deterred.  I will not be harassed.  I am not afraid.  I will give my life for my country and for what I believe in.  “FREEDOM”.

We are in a fight for our nation from an individual and others who want to destroy the United States of America and transform this great nation into a melting pot and Socialistic paradise for radicals and illegal aliens so they can stay in power.

GOD Bless America and those patriots in this fight against the evil ones that want to enslave us, kill GOD, and kill our babies.

Armed with $87,000 worth of weapons, the troops that plotted to kill Obama  were said to have been planning a large set of terrorist activities, including  assassinating the President as well as bombing major targets and overthrowing  the federal government.

Pfc. Michael Burnett pled guilty today to manslaughter as well as  gang-related activity in the December killings of former soldier Michael Roark  and Roark’s girlfriend, 17-year-old Tiffany York. In the case against Burnett,  Roark and York were referred to as “loose ends,” killed because of their  knowledge of the assassination plot.

Ludowici, GA — Four US troops plotted to kill President Obama, going so far  as to kill another two people who were aware of the plot in a story for which  only scant details have been provided for thus far.

Armed with $87,000 worth of weapons, the troops that plotted to kill Obama  were said to have been planning a large set of terrorist activities, including  assassinating the President as well as bombing major targets and overthrowing  the federal government.

Pfc. Michael Burnett pled guilty today to manslaughter as well as  gang-related activity in the December killings of former soldier Michael Roark  and Roark’s girlfriend, 17-year-old Tiffany York. In the case against Burnett,  Roark and York were referred to as “loose ends,” killed because of their  knowledge of the assassination plot.

The initial report on the plot to kill Obama by the US troops refers to an “anarchist militia within the U.S. military with plans to overthrow the federal  government,” and details what we know so far, disclosed earlier today:

“Prosecutor Isabel Pauley says the group bought $87,000 worth of guns and  bomb-making materials and plotted to take over Fort Stewart, bomb targets in  nearby Savannah and Washington state, as well as assassinate the  president.”

Little else is known about the alleged plot to kill Obama, and the names of  the other soldiers thought to be involved in the treasonous plans were not  disclosed in the initial report. For instance, it is not known if Roark is one  of the four accused of planning to kill the president, or if the plot involved  others.

Read more at http://www.inquisitr.com/313590/us-troops-plotted-to-kill-obama-developing-story-indicates/#QB4trDxTEbjJ0vUg.99

The initial report on the plot to kill Obama by the US troops refers to an “anarchist militia within the U.S. military with plans to overthrow the federal  government,” and details what we know so far, disclosed earlier today:

“Prosecutor Isabel Pauley says the group bought $87,000 worth of guns and  bomb-making materials and plotted to take over Fort Stewart, bomb targets in  nearby Savannah and Washington state, as well as assassinate the  president.”

Little else is known about the alleged plot to kill Obama, and the names of  the other soldiers thought to be involved in the treasonous plans were not  disclosed in the initial report. For instance, it is not known if Roark is one  of the four accused of planning to kill the president, or if the plot involved  others.

Read more at http://www.inquisitr.com/313590/us-troops-plotted-to-kill-obama-developing-story-indicates/#QB4trDxTEbjJ0vUg.99

Related articles

• Ga. soldier charged in killing of pregnant wife (wtvm.com)
• Fort Stewart soldier charged with killing wife (onlineathens.com)
• APNewsBreak: Ga. soldier charged with killing wife (heraldonline.com)
• Georgia soldier accused in militia case, now charged with killing pregnant wife (cbsnews.com)
• Former Cashmere soldier, accused of terrorism, now charged in wife’s death (wenatcheeworld.com)
• Ga. soldier charged in killing of pregnant wife (savannahnow.com)
• Soldier accused of leading anti-government militia charged in wife’s killing (chronicle.augusta.com)
• Ga. soldier charged in killing of pregnant wife (bostonherald.com)
• Ga. soldier charged in killing of pregnant wife (stripes.com)
• Ga. soldier charged in killing of pregnant wife (newsobserver.com)

Weatherman domestic terrorist Bill Ayers is now confirming what the White House has previously denied – that he held a fundraiser in his living room for Barack Obama.

That 1995 meeting was said to have launched Obama’s political career.

In an October 2008 interview on MSNBC host Chris Matthews’ show, Robert Gibbs, a spokesman for Obama’s presidential campaign, categorically denied the fundraiser was ever held.

Matthews asked Gibbs: “Did [Ayers] have a fundraiser for [Obama], or not?”

Gibbs, who would become the White House spokesman, replied: “No, he did not have a fundraiser for our candidate as he said ten seconds ago.”

However, in an interview last week with the Daily Beast, Ayers recalled that fundraiser.

Stated Ayers of his relationship with Obama: “We were friendly, that was true; we served on a couple of boards together, that was true; he held a fundraiser in our living room, that was true; Michelle [Obama] and Bernardine were at the law firm together, that was true. Hyde Park in Chicago is a tiny neighborhood, so when he said I was ‘a guy around the neighborhood,’ that was true.”

Does this explain infamous Ayers living-room meeting?

Is the socialist-oriented New Party the missing link at the center of that now infamous 1995 Obama fundraiser in Ayers living room in Chicago?

It was at that meeting that New Party member Alice Palmer announced she wanted Obama as her successor as state senator since she was stepping down to run for Congress.

WND has found that in the July 1996 edition of the New Party’s newsletter, the New Party news, the controversial party announced “the Illinois New Party capped off a month-long house party drive in Chicago.”

Further review of New Party literature from 1995 and 1996 finds that so-called house parties were regularly utilized by the New Party to introduce candidates to leading party activists as well as to raise money and recruit new members.

It is known that single-payer activist Quentin Young, who advised Obama on healthcare when the politician was a state senator, was present at the parlor meeting at the Ayers’ residence.

WND reported that Young was listed by the New Party as an early party founder and builder.

“I can remember being one of a small group of people who came to Bill Ayers’ house to learn that Alice Palmer was stepping down from the senate and running for Congress,” Young was quoted as saying. “[Palmer] identified [Obama] as her successor.”

Chicago-based blogger Maria Warren was also present. She wrote that she remembered watching Obama give a “standard, innocuous little talk” in the Ayers’ home.

“They were launching him,” Warren wrote, “introducing him to the Hyde Park community as the best thing since sliced bread.”

It would make sense that the New Party sponsored the get-together in Ayers’ living room for Palmer’s announcement.

Palmer was the New Party’s signed candidate for office. The New Party, which had partnered closely with ACORN, was mobilizing support for Palmer among its constituents and the larger Chicago progressive community.

New Party founder and Marxist activist Carl Davidson recalled screening Palmer and signing her up to the party.

Wrote Davidson:

In the next two elections in the city … the New Party has taken a slightly different approach. It organized a citywide candidates forum and invited a number of progressive candidates. Of those responding, two were of special interest, Alice Palmer and Willie Delgado … Both Palmer and Delgado attended the [New Party] forum and were thoroughly questioned by 70 or so New Party members. At the close, both publicly signed a “contract” with the New Party … Two weeks later, the New Party formally endorsed them and is now mobilizing support.

How was the New Party mobilizing the stated support for Palmer at the time, an effort that Palmer wanted transferred to Obama?

WND reported the New Party had such a close relationship with ACORN that at one point the two shared an office address, fax lines and email addresses.

ACORN led the New Party’s mobilization and voter drive efforts. In progressive circles at the time, the New Party was considered the de facto political wing of ACORN, a group with which Obama long maintained a close relationship.

Ayers and Dohrn, meanwhile, traveled in the same political circles as New Party leaders, making it even more likely the duo could have hosted a New Party house meeting. The duo were key supporters of Palmer.

In 1994 Dohrn and Bill Ayers were listed on a “Membership, Subscription and Mailing List” for the Chicago Committees of Correspondence, which was co-chaired by New Party founder Davidson.

WND found that Chicago activists Joe Iosbaker and Stephanie Weiner were also listed as New Party leaders.

Iosbaker is a University of Illinois-Chicago office worker and a union steward for his SEIU local. His home was raided by the FBI in September 2010 reportedly as part of a terror probe investigating material support for jihadist groups.

Together with other activists raided in the same probe, Iosbaker and Weiner are founders of the so-called Committee to Stop FBI Repression, which protested the FBI raids.

Another founder of the committee whose home was part of the same raid is Hatem Abudayyeh, the executive director of the Arab American Action Network, or AAAN.

WND was first to report that Obama, while serving as a paid director of the far-left nonprofit Chicago Woods Fund, provided two grants to the AAAN. Obama served at the Woods Fund alongside Ayers.

AAAN was founded by a longtime Obama associate, Columbia University Professor Rashid Khalidi. Khalidi’s wife, Mona, is president of the Arab American Action Network.

The New Party, meanwhile, is coming under increased scrutiny after new information emerged further indicating Obama was a member of the party in the 1990s.

The New Party was a 1990s party that sought to elect members to public office with the aim of moving the Democratic Party far leftward to ultimately form a new political party with a socialist agenda.

In 2008, Obama’s campaign denied the president was ever a member amid reports, including from WND, citing the New Party’s own literature listing Obama as a member.

Information uncovered in recent weeks, including Obama’s signed contract with the New Party, further establishes the president’s membership with the controversial organization.

Socialist goals

The New Party, established in 1992, took advantage of what was known as electoral “fusion,” which enabled candidates to run on two tickets simultaneously, attracting voters from both parties. But the New Party disbanded in 1998, one year after fusion was halted by the Supreme Court.

The socialist-oriented goals of the New Party were enumerated on its old website.

Among the New Party’s stated objectives were “full employment, a shorter work week and a guaranteed minimum income for all adults; a universal ‘social wage’ to include such basic benefits as health care, child care, vacation time and lifelong access to education and training; a systematic phase-in of comparable worth; and like programs to ensure gender equity.”

The New Party stated it also sought “the democratization of our banking and financial system – including popular election of those charged with public stewardship of our banking system, worker-owner control over their pension assets [and] community-controlled alternative financial institutions.”

Many of the New Party’s founding members were Democratic Socialists of America leaders and members of Committees of Correspondence, a breakaway of the Communist Party USA.

Last month, WND reported on a 1996 print advertisement in a local Chicago newspaper that shows Obama was the speaker at an event sponsored and presented by the Democratic Socialists of America, the DSA.

WND first reported on the event in 2010.

Obama listed as New Party member

In 2009, WND reported on newspaper evidence from the New Party’s own literature listing several new members of the New Party, including Obama.

Earlier this month, Kurtz, writing at National Review Online, reported Obama signed a “contract” promising to publicly support and associate himself with the New Party while in office.

In 2008, Obama’s Fight the Smears campaign website quoted Carol Harwell, who managed Obama’s 1996 campaign for the Illinois Senate, as stating: “Barack did not solicit or seek the New Party endorsement for state senator in 1995.”

Fight the Smears conceded the New Party did support Obama in 1996 but denied that Obama had ever joined.

Reblogged from moralmatters.org:

• 
• 

The investigation into Obama's show cased birth certificate is complete. The "Sheriff Arpaio Cold Case Posse" has not only found that Obama's long form birth certificate is a forgery, but is the same investigation that has now publicly declared the felony forgery.

This past recent Friday, the Arpaio chief detective investigator, Mike Zullo went on national radio airwaves as the highlighted guest of Pastor Carl Gallups "Freedom Friday" talk show host program.

Read more… 1,235 more words

Many cases challenging Barack Obama’s presidential eligibility have come and  gone, but now an appeal has been filed with a state Supreme Court led by a newly  elected chief justice who has expressed doubt about Obama’s qualification for  office.

Roy Moore was elected chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court last  November, a decade after he defied a federal order to remove a Ten Commandments  monument from the state Supreme Court building.

Get Judge  Roy Moore’s classic book about his battle for liberty, “So Help Me God: The Ten  Commandments, Judicial Tyranny, and the Battle for Religious  Freedom.”

Attorney Larry Klayman, founder of the Washington, D.C.-watch dog Judicial  Watch and now head of Freedom  Watch, filed the appeal Tuesday with the Alabama Supreme Court, asking for  oral arguments.

“We are hopeful that Chief Justice Moore and the rest of the jurists on the  Alabama Supreme Court will follow the law,” Klayman told WND.

Klayman says he and his team “have great respect for Chief Justice Moore and  his integrity and legal acumen.”

“He is one courageous and brave man. There are few in this country.”

The case is an appeal of a dismissal by the Montgomery Circuit Court.

In his brief, Klayman says “credible evidence and information from an  official source” was presented to Chapman before the election indicating Obama  might not have been qualified for Oval Office.

The complaint argues Chapman failed her constitutional duty as secretary of  state to verify the eligibility of candidates.

Moore is on the record questioning Obama’s eligibility.

In an interview with WND in  2010, he defended Lt. Col Terrence Lakin’s demand that President Obama prove  his eligibility as commander in chief as a condition of obeying deployment  orders.

Moore said he had seen no convincing evidence that Obama is a natural-born  citizen and much evidence that suggests he is not.

Moore said Lakin “not only has a right to follow his personal convictions  under the Constitution, he has a duty.”

“And if the authority running the efforts of the war is not a citizen in  violation of the Constitution, the order is unlawful,” he said.

‘Affirmative duty’

Klayman asserts the secretary of state “has an affirmative duty that stems  from her oath of office under both the U.S. and Alabama Constitutions, to  protect the citizens from fraud and other misconduct by candidates.”

As a result of her refusal to investigate the qualifications of candidates  for president, Klayman says, “a person believed to be unqualified for that  office has been elected.”

The remedy, he said, “is to require each candidate to do what every teenager  is required to do to get a learner’s permit.”

“It is to produce a bona fide birth certificate … and the Secretary of State  is the official to cause that to happen.”

McInnish is a member of the Madison County Republican Executive Committee and  also sits on the state Republican Executive Committee.

Citing the investigation of Maricopa County, Ariz., Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s Cold  Case Posse, Klayman says Chapman “gained knowledge from an official source that  there was probable cause to believe the Barack Obama had not met a certifying  qualification.”

The appeal brief notes McInnish visited the secretary of state’s office Feb.  2, 2012, and spoke with the deputy secretary of state, Emily Thompson, in  Chapman’s absence.

Thompson, the brief says, “represented that her office would not investigate  the legitimacy of any candidate, thus violating her duties under the U.S. and  Alabama Constitutions.”

As WND  reported, Arpaio and his team concluded that Obama’s long-form birth  certificate was a computer-generated forgery.

Klayman, in a previous brief, argued the secretary of state, “having the  power to certify candidates, can surely de-certify – in effect disqualify – them  if they are found to be ineligible.”

In his new appeal, Klayman points, as an example, to California Secretary of  State Debra Bowen’s rejection of Petra Lindsay on the 2012 California primary  ballot because she was 27 years old. The U.S. Constitution requires the  president to be at least 35.

In his conclusion, Klayman argues the fact that the election is over does not  make the case moot.

“It would be paradoxical beyond measure if the real and grave question of the  legitimacy of the de facto President, a question which lies at the very heart of  our American Constitutional Government, were left unresolved for want of the  simplest of documents, a birth certificate.”

If either a bona fide birth certificate is produced or an admission is made  that it does not exist, he writes, “this most important of legal questions will  have been answered, the purity of Alabama’s ballot maintained, and the anxiety  of Alabama citizens stilled.”

If the issue is not resolved, he said, citizens will be left with the  impression “that their government was dysfunctional and has ignored their real  concerns.

‘Certain documentation’

In an earlier step in the case one year ago, before a panel of Alabama  Supreme Court justices, one justice raised doubts about Obama’s eligibility.

The justices denied a  petition filed by McInnish seeking to require Obama submit an original birth  certificate before he could be placed on the state’s 2012 ballot.

Justice Tom Parker filed a  special, unpublished concurrence in the case arguing that McInnish’s charges  of “forgery” were legitimate cause for concern.

“Mclnnish has attached certain documentation to his mandamus petition, which,  if presented to the appropriate forum as part of a proper evidentiary  presentation, would raise serious questions about the authenticity of both the ‘short form’ and the ‘long form’ birth certificates of President Barack Hussein  Obama that have been made public.”

The “certain documentation” is the findings of Arpaio’s investigation.

“The Alabama Constitution implies that this court is without jurisdiction  over McInnish’s original petition,” Parker explained. “The office of the  secretary of state of Alabama is not a ‘court of inferior jurisdiction’ that  this court may control through the issuance of a writ in response to a  petition.”

Now, however, the case is coming from a lower court.

‘Obama violated the Constitution’

Moore told  WND in an interview after his election last November that the country must  return to a standard in which the rule of law prevails over politics.

He said Obama violated the Constitution when he bombed Libya, because the  Constitution stipulates only Congress shall declare war.

“No president has the power to violate constitutional restraints of power,” Moore said.

“The Constitution is the rule of law, and [my job is] to uphold the rule of  law.”

Government’s job, Moore said, is to secure and protect those rights.

“There is little regard for the Constitution in the courts today, even the  U.S. Supreme Court.”

Related articles

• Will Alabama Supreme Court Rule Obama Ineligible? (theobamahustle.wordpress.com)
• Judge Roy Moore To Preside Over Obama Eligibility Case (godfatherpolitics.com)

Press Release

The Daily Caller

A press office staffer for Vice President Joe Biden forced a credentialed reporter from the University of Maryland’s Philip Merrill College of Journalism to delete photos taken Tuesday at an event in the Washington, D.C. suburb of Rockville, Md.

Vice President Joe Biden’s press secretary, Kendra Barkoff, has since apologized for the thuggery.

The University of Maryland’s student-run Capital News Service has the story.

The reporter, Jeremy Barr, showed up to cover an event related to domestic violence. Biden, Attorney General Eric Holder and Maryland Sen. Ben Cardin were on hand.

The trouble began when he unintentionally took a seat in an area that wasn’t specifically designated for members of the press.

“I didn’t see any demarcation that would have designated a press entrance versus a general entrance,” Barr told Capital News Service.

Once the event started, Barr said, he snapped a few photos of each speaker.

“People a few rows in front of me were also taking photos,” he added.

When the event ended, Biden press staffer Dana Rosenzweig questioned Barr about his photos, according to the New York Daily News.

“She said, ‘I need to see your camera right now,’” Barr told CNS.

“I assumed that I’d violated a protocol,” the student reporter added. “I gave her the benefit of the doubt that she was following proper procedures.”

Rosenzweig’s rationale was that Barr’s presence in an area of the crowd that wasn’t designated specifically for the press gave him an “unfair advantage” over other nearby media representatives at the event.

It’s unclear what this advantage could have been.

Biden’s staffer then made Barr delete all the photos from his camera. She watched him the whole time to make sure he obeyed. She also scrutinized his iPhone to confirm that he didn’t save any photos.

Rosenzweig wasn’t done violating Barr’s rights just yet. She told him to wait while she found her boss. After about 10 minutes, the staffer told Barr she was terribly sorry, and allowed him to leave.

Lucy A. Dalglish, dean of the Philip Merrill College of Journalism at the University of Maryland, later filed a formal complaint with the vice president’s press office.

Dalglish informed Biden’s press secretary that her staffer had broken a federal law (the violation of the First Amendment notwithstanding).

“This was pure intimidation,” Dalglish told CNS. “It’s clear from the circumstance that the journalist did nothing wrong.”

This incident follows an enduring pattern of heavy-handed behavior by Biden’s staff toward the press.

In August 2012, Biden’s staff was busted trying to convince journalists not to report a host of ridiculous things Biden had said, according to Fox News.

In 2011, as ABC News reported, Biden’s coterie had to apologize for forcing a reporter to stand in a closet for an hour.

Related articles

• Biden Press Office Apologizes For Demanding Student Journalist Delete Photographs (washington.cbslocal.com)
• Biden Press Office Liberal Thugs (educationviews.org)
• Biden press staff demanded student reporter delete photos (politico.com)
• Biden’s Office Apologizes After Bullying Student Reporter — At Domestic Violence Event… (washingtonpost.com)
• BIDEN Press Office FORCES College Student JOURNALIST TO DELETE PHOTOS (secretsofthefed.com)
• Biden’s Office Forces Reporter To Delete Photos, Apologizes (libertycrier.com)
• Biden staffer demands student reporter delete photos (upi.com)
• Joe Biden Staffer Orders College Journalist to Delete Photo (photographyisnotacrime.com)
• Vice President Biden’s press office demands student reporter delete photos, apologizes (twitchy.com)
• Biden’s Press Office Apologizes After Staffer Made Student Reporter Delete Photos (mediaite.com)

By Olivier Knox, Yahoo! News

President Barack Obama has the legal authority to unleash deadly force—such as drone strikes—against Americans on U.S. soil without first putting them on trial, Attorney General Eric Holder wrote in a letter released Tuesday

Holder, writing to Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, underlined that Obama “has no intention” of targeting his fellow citizens with unmanned aerial vehicles and would do so only if facing “an extraordinary circumstance.”

Paul had asked the Obama administration on Feb. 20 whether the president “has the power to authorize lethal force, such as a drone strike, against a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil and without trial.” On Tuesday, he denounced Holder’s response as “frightening” and “an affront to the Constitutional due process rights of all Americans.”

“The U.S. government has not carried out drone strikes in the United States and has no intention of doing so,” Holder assured Paul in the March 4, 2013 letter. The attorney general also underlined that “we reject the use of military force where well-established law enforcement authorities in this country provide the best means for incapacitating a terrorist threat.”

Holder added: “The question you have posed is therefore entirely hypothetical, unlikely to occur, and one we hope no President will ever have to confront.”

But “it is possible, I suppose to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States,” Holder said. “For example, the President could conceivably have no choice but to authorize the military to use such force if necessary to protect the homeland in the circumstances of a catastrophic attack” like Pearl Harbor or 9/11.

“Were such an emergency to arise, I would examine the particular facts and circumstances before advising the President on the scope of this authority,” said Holder.  Paul, whose office released the letter, denounced the attorney general’s comments.

“The U.S. Attorney General’s refusal to rule out the possibility of drone strikes on American citizens and on American soil is more than frightening—it is an affront the Constitutional due process rights of all Americans,” the senator said in a statement.

The exchange came as the White House agreed to give Senate Intelligence Committee members access to all of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel opinions justifying Obama’s expanded campaign of targeted assassination of suspected terrorists overseas, including American citizens. Some lawmakers had warned they would try to block top Obama counterterrorism adviser John Brennan’s nomination to head the CIA unless they were able to see the memos.

A few hours after the White House agreed to share the information, the committee approved Brennan 12-3, setting the stage for a full Senate vote.

Obama’s drone war—relatively popular at home, reviled across the Muslim world—has drawn fresh scrutiny ever since NBC News obtained and published a Justice Department memo that lays out the legal justification behind it. The White House has defended the policy as “necessary,” “ethical” and “wise.” But civil liberties champions have sharply criticized it.

Related articles

• Obama thinks he has authority to assassinate U.S. citizens on American soil… (bluegrasspundit.com)
• Tyrant Eric Holder: Drone Strikes Against Americans on U.s. Soil Are Legal (secretsofthefed.com)
• ERIC HOLDER: Lethal Force by POTUS Against A U.S. Citizen, And Without Trial, Is Legal… (Updated) (redflagnews.com)
• Holder: Drone strike against Americans in the U.S. possible (security.blogs.cnn.com)
• Attorney General Eric Holder: Drone strike on U.S. soil ‘hypothetically’ possible (rawstory.com)
• Eric Holder: Drone strikes against Americans on U.S. soil are legal (lunaticoutpost.com)
• Holder: Obama could order lethal force in U.S. (politico.com)
• Breaking: Attorney General Holder Asserts Authority to Conduct Drone Strikes on U.S. Citizens (economicpolicyjournal.com)
• Holder: Drone strike against Americans in the U.S. possible (aworldchaos.wordpress.com)