Bombshell: Top Secret Hillary Email Includes Discussion Of Highly Secretive Operation

Highly sensitive information was in two emails on Hillary Clinton’s private server, including a discussion of drone strikes in the Middle East, the Associated Press reported Friday. A second email could possibly point back to highly classified material in an improper manner, AP reported.

On Monday, the inspector general for the U.S. intelligence community told Congress that two of 40 emails in a random sample of the 30,000 emails Clinton gave the State Department for review contained information deemed “Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information,” one of the government’s highest levels of classification.

The drone exchange, the officials said, begins with a copy of a news article that discusses the CIA drone program that targets alleged terrorists in Pakistan and elsewhere. The copy makes reference to classified information. A Clinton adviser follows up by dancing around the top secret information in a way that could possibly be inferred as confirmation, they said.

A second email about an “Egyptian proposal” for a reconciliation ceremony with Hamas reviewed by Charles McCullough, the intelligence community inspector general, appears more suspect. Some interviewed by AP said it improperly points back to highly classified material, but not all sources agreed.

“The issue is, she should come clean and deal with it,” said GOP presidential candidate Jeb Bush, campaigning Friday at the Iowa State Fair. “It’s an issue when people are prosecuted for disclosing classified information and then we now have this allegation yet to be determined, but the FBI’s looking into it, that classified information went across her private server. This is an issue. It’s not a distraction, for sure.”

Even if the emails highlighted by the intelligence community prove innocuous, Clinton will still face questions about whether she set up the private server with the aim of avoiding scrutiny, whether emails she deleted because she said they were personal were actually work-related, and whether she appropriately shielded such emails from possible foreign spies and hackers.

The FBI’s inspection of Clinton’s server could also yield valuable information into how secure the server was and whether it was ever hacked, said Elad Yoran, executive chairman of Koolspan Inc., a communications security company based in Bethesda, Maryland.

“They may be able to tell whether it was hacked and that opens up a whole other set of questions,” Yoran said.

Yoran said he considered Clinton’s use of a private email system and server to be extraordinary and wasn’t aware of any other government officials doing the same.

“This wasn’t done because it was convenient for her,” Yoran said. “There’s a ton of email services that are available that are actually quite secure, easy to use, and you can use them on every device.”

h/t: Associated Press

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Welcome To Oz: Decoding The Republican Primary Debate

The recent Republican primary debate, which was actually not a debate but more of a Q&A, evidences problems similar to those Dorothy faced in The Wizard of Oz.

For the third consecutive presidential election, the GOP has proven it can divide and conquer itself without anyone else’s help. The Republican Party cannot define itself and has lost trust and support from most conservatives. Painfully obvious attacks by Establishment Republicans on conservatives only further implodes a fragmented party unprepared to combat the Democratic war chest built by corporate donors and Hillary Clinton’s fine-tuned strategy and likely umpteenth avoidance of prison.

What most observers have known for a while is that Fox News supports the already chosen establishment candidate, Jeb Bush. Its executives have purposefully excluded Senators Rand Paul and Ted Cruz (who challenged its debate standards) from poll coverage. Megyn Kelly followed orders to attack Donald Trump, unsurprisingly creating a social media backlash. Kelly asked Trump some of the stupidest questions ever asked by anyone of any candidate ever.

Yet, her hubris and delusion became more apparent by her suggestions that Ted Cruz “get out of the race,” and that no candidate could become president without “getting through her first.”

The establishment’s choice explains why no moderator pressed Jeb Bush about his either deceitful or incompetent response about his connection to Planned Parenthood, or his family’s generational connections to the organization he supported before he opposed, before or after he “misspoke” about women’s health issues. (Depending on the day, it’s unclear what issue Bush has evolved on, including marriage.)

Politics aside, the debate caused more Americans to realize, as Dorothy did when she realized that she wasn’t in Kansas anymore, that few in the media report news anymore.

This is primarily because only six (6) corporations own 90 percent of the media in America (CBS Corporation, Comcast, Disney, News Corp., Time Warner, and Viacom). Of the roughly 1,500 newspapers, 1,000 magazines, 9,000 radio stations, 1,500 television stations, and 2,400 publishers left in America, six corporations–led by fewer than 275 executives–control what is “news.”

That’s fewer than 275 people controlling and censoring 90 percent of what Americans hear, read, or view. Comparably, that’s one media executive controlling what an entire audience the size of San Francisco hears, views, or reads as “news.”

And the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has enabled these monopolies to consolidate power and profits. Under President Bill Clinton, the 1996 Telecommunications Act significantly lifted previous regulatory constraints. By 2010, those six companies’ revenues exceeded $275 billion—36 billion times more than the country of Finland’s 2010 GDP.

By 2011, the FCC had eliminated even more regulations, including the Fairness Doctrine, which enabled broadcasters to provide even less “balanced” coverage of issues. It also enabled them to increase the number of commercial advertisements aired per hour, amassing even more wealth and consolidation of power.

As monopolies carved up their territories, journalism began to evaporate. Of the few reporters left, most are limited in their efforts to investigate and report facts. For example, if reporters had investigated the Benghazi attack, they would have uncovered and reported basic facts:

  • Benghazi was a “failed” CIA weapons smuggling operation designed to steal and transport weapons from Libya to Syria;
  • The CIA used these weapons to arm and train the alleged “junior league” “Syrian rebels” to overthrow Syrian president Bashar al-Assad;
  • These rebels became ISIS, now using American money, ammunition, machinery, and even brand new Toyota trucks, to commit widespread genocide of Christians;
  • Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Qatar all wanted Assad deposed. America did its bidding, initiating a regional proxy war by using a loophole in a 1970 law to authorize the CIA’s operation;
  • The only problem is that Americans died, potentially exposing what the government wanted to remain hidden.

As a result, nearly all news organizations spewed out the same propaganda: violence in Libya was caused by a video, “The Innocence of Muslims.” Yet common sense should have demanded that basic questions be asked and answered:

  • How could any Libyan understand a video in English that most did not even have access to view?
  • Even if they had known some English, it’s doubtful they could have understood who the characters were or the actors’ epic failed attempts at satire or comedy. (That was even lost on westerners. In fact, the video is so bad that no rational person could label it as “acting” by any standard.)

Had the media reported on this, perhaps there would have been Congressional hearings like those of Watergate or Iran Contra. Many government officials should have gone to jail. Yet the person largely responsible for this, Hillary Clinton, received a “Liberty Medal” from Jeb Bush on the eve of the Benghazi anniversary—which no moderator even touched. Nor did they ask why he and Hillary Clinton receive millions of dollars from the same ultra-rich mega donors.

Nor did they ask the common sense question: why would the American government send billions of dollars to Iran, a country that has openly expressed its intent to destroy America? Isn’t aiding and abetting America’s enemy treason?

Treason used to be taken seriously. But then again, so did the media.

Few news organizations, if any, are reporting on where Iran first got its nuclear technology–Eisenhower’s “Atoms for Peace” program–or that the CIA overthrew Iran’s democratically elected republic in 1953. That is partially because Iran is inextricably linked to one of the six media corporations–Disney, which owns ABC News.

In 1979, at the behest of the government, ABC News ran a temporary program, “America Held Hostage,” to “keep Americans informed” about the Iranian hostage crisis. This nightly news program eventually became “Nightline.” Yet, did “Nightline” ever report that the Iranian revolution was an attempt to oust the brutal dictator the CIA had put in power?

Iran is also linked to Fox News, whose second largest shareholder is billionaire Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal. His Kingdom Holding Co. owns 6.6% of News Corp.’s (one of the six major corporations) entertainment company, 21st Century Fox, which includes Fox Searchlight, the Fox broadcasting network, and Fox News. The Saudis have been closely connected to the Bushes for nearly 100 years, and have a vested interest in the struggle against Shiite Muslims (Iran) and American foreign policy.

Yet, fewer than 275 people censor these facts.

What became more obvious to more people after watching the debate is that “news coverage” differs vastly from reality. And, more Americans are confronting, like Dorothy, the man behind the curtain frantically pulling levers and pushing buttons, beaming false information from “the wizard” on a screen while also telling her to “Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!”

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Danish Diplomats: Obama Lied About Threat of Islamic State

A couple of months after Islamic State began to conquer large areas in Iraq and Syria, an assistant reporter working for the Japanese paper Asahi Shimbun met with diplomats of the Danish embassy in Damascus.

They told the assistant reporter (who told Western Journalism she prefers to stay anonymous) that the CIA had repeatedly warned the Obama administration and Western governments that ISIS was the biggest threat to world peace since Hitler’s Nazi regime. The diplomats said they used to receive CIA cables with warnings about Islamic State’s activities.

The conversation between the diplomats and the Asahi reporter took place in Copenhagen months after President Obama had called Islamic State a ‘junior varsity’ team and later blamed the U.S. intelligence services for underestimating the threat of ISIS.

Today, Obama and other world leaders still have trouble recognizing the true character of ISIS and even want us to refrain from using the name ‘Islamic State’ for ISIS. Only last week, UK Prime Minister David Cameron tried to convince the media in the United Kingdom not to use the name ‘Islamic State’ anymore.

The BBC has now started to call ISIS “the entity that calls itself the Islamic State.” Israeli media use to call Islamic State ‘Daesh,’ which is the Arabic acronym for Islamic State in Iraq and Syria/Levant.

Middle East expert Dr. Mordechai Kedar thinks that politicians, media personalities, academicians, and experts who refuse to use the name Islamic State ”have a visceral and psychological opposition to recognizing this organization as a state, even though the area it controls as of today is 15 times the size of Israel.”

Kedar wrote in an op-ed for Israel National News that “denial is of no use, however, and laundering a name will not change reality, because what looks like a state, sounds like a state and functions like a state – is a state, even if we dislike it intensely. Denying Islamic State’s existence is like much of the Arab world’s denial of Israel’s existence for over 67 years and their use of the insulting name ‘The Zionist Entity’ for the Jewish State.”

I hereby call upon the world to open its eyes, admit the reality that has been forced on the Middle East and understand that Islamic State intends to stay and has no plans to evaporate. Islamic State is part of the Middle East reality and the world must relate to it as a state. In case anyone is wondering. Let me state clearly that I have not turned into a public relations lackey of Caliph Abu Bakr el-Baghdadi.

On the contrary, I call on the world to regard his state exactly as it did Nazi Germany, because that is the only way the world can overcome the psychological barrier that allows it to live in denial. It must wake up, look reality straight in the eye, prepare for war and destroy Islamic State. For as long as the world relates to that entity as an organization, gang, group, or something with unintelligible initials, there is a feeling that it can be overcome if the West bombs here and there, eliminates someone here and there – and there is no greater error than that kind of thinking.

He then continued to explain that ISIS is not an organization anymore but indeed a state:

A state is a political entity that is in control of territory, has governmental institutions and the ability to carry out its policies, enact laws and enforce them on the population living in that territory.  It must be able to defend its lands and interests by means of armed forces, maintain an administrative and economic system that allows its citizens to lead their daily lives. All of these characteristics can be found in Islamic State….

It is important to note that Islamic State has removed the words “Iraq and Syria” from its name. It sees itself as ruler of the entire world, erasing the borders set by colonialists. Islamist doctrine holds that Allah created a single world, and that no one has the right to carve it into states and countries. Allah gave the world Islamic Sharia, the heavenly and perfect legal system that is the most suitable for Mankind, and no human being has the right to enact other, man-made laws.

Kedar warned that if the world continues to live in a state of denial about the true character and the aspirations of Islamic State, the consequences will be dire.

He is convinced the time has come for a massive military effort to destroy the Islamic State:

The world must open its eyes, awaken and begin to plan the way it is going to have to deal with Islamic  State, before that state deals with the world. Bombing from the air will not eliminate Islamic State, the only way that will work is boots on the ground – armies that will send Islamic State fighters where they belong. It is either them or us, and anyone who hopes that Iran will do the work for him will be bitterly disappointed: Despite the hatred and aversion that lies between the Sunni Islamic state and Shiite Iran, both wish to see Islam’s hegemony over the entire globe. Iran will not do anything significant against Islamic State so as not to help the haughty and heretic nations of the West.

Islamic State is growing by leaps and bounds, more and more organizations are joining it and more and more people are adopting its ideas. This state did not exist a year and a half ago, but it has metamorphosed into the latest thing in international politics. It is a serious threat to Western civilization and if the West does not begin serious military action, the danger will turn into an existential one. The longer the West waits to respond, the harder, longer and dearer the war –and  yes, it is going to be a real war – against Islamic State will be.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Democrats And GOP Rebels Save The Day On Obamatrade

After the Republican-controlled Senate foolishly passed the so-called “Obamatrade” bill, the House leadership (John Boehner, Steve Scalise, Paul Ryan, et al.) worked their tails off to pass the bill. But a majority of Democrats and liberty-minded Republicans (small in number) rallied in opposition to the bill and voted it down. HOORAY! In this case, it was mostly Democrats who saved the day!

I have been saying for years that people who think the Republican establishment is a friend to liberty are extremely naïve. On issues regarding so-called “free trade” (it’s NOT free trade; it’s globalism masquerading as free trade), the Warfare State, deficit spending, globalism, and civil liberties, the Republican Party in Washington, D.C., is FAR WORSE than the Democrat Party. In general terms, the Democrat Party is worse on issues that deal with gun control, welfare, abortion, gay marriage, and extremist environmentalist policies. As one should easily be able to see, there is no “lesser of two evils” between these two parties. Each party is a greater evil, depending on the issue. And taken as a whole, both parties in Washington, D.C., are selling our liberties down the river.

But this so-called Obamatrade bill is a nightmare. If you thought NAFTA and GATT are bad (and they are), Obamatrade (TPP) is far worse. Even worse is that congressional leaders will not allow the public to know what’s in the bill. Heck, most of the congressmen and senators who are voting on the bill don’t know what’s in it.

Matt Drudge paraphrases Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisconsin) angrily growling at reporters: “You will read it after we pass it.” What a pompous, arrogant blockhead Mr. Ryan is. Obviously, he has been in Congress too long.

One of the senators who did read the bill is Senator Jeff Sessions (R-Alabama). And he is doing his best to warn the American people about just how horrific this bill really is. Breitbart.com recently interviewed one of Senator Sessions’ staff leaders regarding the impact of passing TPP.

“Stephen Miller, one of the staff leaders for Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Alabama), joined Breitbart News Sunday and was asked by Breitbart’s Executive Chairman and host, Stephen K. Bannon: ‘Isn’t the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) really a global governance deal, rather than a trade agreement? Is this a way to get the United States into a Pacific Union, as Senator Sessions lays out, that is very much like the European Union?’

“‘That’s exactly what is happening here,’ said Miller. ‘The Pacific Union that Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) refers to is the new transnational governance body that would be created by the Transpacific Partnership.’

“‘What this means,’ explained Miller, ‘is the house and the senate together would be authorizing the president to enter the United States into a new trans-national union.’

“The Union would consist at first of twelve countries, but additional countries could join and be added over time. ‘It could issue regulations about labor policy, about immigration policy, about environmental policies, and many other areas impacting American life, American jobs, and American wages.’

“Also appearing on the program, which airs on Sirius XM, Patriot Radio, channel 125, was Lord Christopher Monckton. Monckton, who served as a policy advisor for former UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, argues that a Trans Pacific Union would bear a significant resemblance to the European Union, which Monckton insists is a serious detriment to democracy and leads to dictatorship.”

“As a result, Miller added, ‘the president can enter into an unlimited number of large sweeping international agreements. And, congress can’t filibuster them, at any point, for the next six full years.’

“Monckton retorted, ‘We’ve used this word before on this program–dictatorship. This is dictatorship.’”

See the report here:

TPP Enters USA Into A ‘New Trans-National Union’

The Obamatrade bill was proffered in two roll call votes. According to the rules established by House leaders, BOTH bills had to pass in order for “fast track” trade authority to be granted to President Obama. Boehner did this because he knew it would fail in one vote, as it was widely opposed by both Republican freedomists (a small group but enough to help defeat the bill) and liberal Democrats (liberals are not wrong on every issue). He was hoping he could muster enough support from both groups by separating the votes. His plan backfired. The first bill failed by a wide margin; so even though the second bill passed (barely), it was a moot point. The way to find the Republican rebels (America-first constitutionalists) is to look at the ones who voted against Obamatrade on BOTH votes. Here are those 37 brave Republican House members:

Justin Amash (MI); Dave Brat (VA); James Bridenstine (OK); Mo Brooks (AL); Ken Buck (CO); Michael Burgess (TX); Curt Clawson (FL); Doug Collins (GA); Chris Collins (NY); Paul Cook (CA); Jeff Duncan (SC); John J. Duncan (TN); Morgan Griffith (VA); Andy Harris (MD); Duncan Hunter (CA); Lynn Jenkins (KS); Walter Jones (NC); Jim Jordan (OH); David Joyce (OH); Raul Labrador (ID); Frank LoBiondo (NJ); Richard Nugent (FL); Gary Palmer (AL); Steve Pearce (NM); Scott Perry (PA); Bruce Poliquin (ME); Bill Posey (FL); Dana Rohrabacher (CA); Keith Rothfus (PA); Steve Russell (OK); Chris Smith (NJ); Daniel Webster (FL); Lynn Westmoreland (GA); Rob Wittman (VA); Ted Yoho (FL); Don Young (AK); Lee Zeldon (NY).

If you live in the district of one of these congressmen, you can be very proud of your representative.

And for those GOP House members who voted “Nay” on either vote, there is retribution from the Republican leadership. NationalJournal.com has this part of the story:

“House Republican leaders are cracking down on rebellious members after a near-disaster on a trade vote last week.

“Reps. Cynthia Lummis, Steve Pearce, and Trent Franks have been removed from the whip team after they sided with GOP rebels to vote against a rule governing debate on a trade bill, according to sources close to the team.”

“But House Majority Whip Steve Scalise had said earlier in the year that he would not tolerate members voting against rules and has already removed two other members [Jeff Duncan and Ron DeSantis] close to the conservative movement.”

See the report here:

Three Booted From GOP Whip Team As Leaders Crack Down

As for House Democrats, they held together in their opposition to TPP even when President Barack Obama personally went to Capitol Hill and lobbied them to support it. Nancy Pelosi (D-California) must be given credit on this issue, as she held fast in her opposition to TPP and encouraged Democrats to stand together in opposing it–which they did.

What is it about Democrat presidents who campaign against these so-called “free trade” deals when they are candidates and then become full-fledged supporters of the deals after being elected? Bill Clinton did the exact same thing. It just further demonstrates what I’ve been saying all along: at the highest levels of government, party affiliation, party platforms, and promises to party grassroots mean NOTHING. Powerbrokers are calling the shots; and the President (no matter the party) is too often but a pawn of these Machiavellians.

And if there is any issue that these international elites who are dominating Washington politics are doggedly determined to bring into being, it is the breakdown of national economic borders and the establishment of a global financial system.

Of course, one cannot have a global financial system without enacting a global political and military system to control and manage it. And, that, folks, is what all of these wars in the Middle East are about. It has NOTHING to do with the “war on terror.” It is all about establishing global government. The global elite are merely manipulating the West vs. Muslim façade to bring down those governments in the Middle East (Iran and Syria) that refuse to submit to the Federal Reserve’s international banking system and bring the oil-rich region of the Middle East completely under the Fed’s control.

Consider this: Saudi Arabia beheads far more people than ISIS. In fact, Saudi Arabia is one country that is indeed governed by strict Sharia Law. Yet, the United States considers the Saudis our dear friends and allies. And Christians seem totally oblivious to Saudi Arabia’s barbarism and intolerance. When is the last time you heard any pastor or Christian calling for war against Saudi Arabia?

Furthermore, independent news agencies are reporting that the United States is actually ASSISTING ISIS militarily.

Please take the time to read this report:

Anti-ISIS Coalition Forces Are The Target: US Warplanes Strike Iraqi Army Position, US Delivers Weapons To Terrorists

Folks, please turn off FOX News long enough to do some independent research. America is not at war with ISIS. America’s CIA created ISIS and continues to assist it. The U.S. government is using ISIS to attack its real target: the leaders of Iran and Syria who staunchly stand in the way of the U.S./Saudi Arabia/Israel machinations to centralize the banking systems of the Middle East. That is what the wars in the Middle East are truly about.

At this writing (Tuesday, June 16), GOP leaders and President Obama are collaborating on how to bring “fast track” trade authority back to the House floor for passage. But for now, it was House Democrats and that small number of Republican rebels who saved the day on Obamatrade.

P.S. Let me remind readers that we have just produced an hour-long DVD wherein Attorney Tim Baldwin lectures (complete with instructional slides) on the topic: “Police Contact: How To Respond.”

Tim explains your rights and the law regarding police contacts in a variety of circumstances, such as traffic stops, etc. He explains the rights and protections you have under the Constitution. He presents a constitutional, legal analysis of what you should and shouldn’t do when brought into contact with a police officer, sheriff’s deputy, or highway patrolman.

Tim is a former felony prosecutor and is now a criminal defense attorney. He has seen both sides of the criminal justice system and is imminently qualified to discuss this subject. He knows that for an attorney to best protect his or her clients, his clients need to know how to protect themselves before and during the investigative and arrest procedures.

Police officers are SERVANTS of the People and are as obligated to obey the Constitution as are each of us. Knowing these rights and protections will give you much CONFIDENCE when you are pulled over by a police officer.

Let me hasten to say that I am ALWAYS respectful to a police officer. And so should we always be. We must respect his position. But mostly, we must respect the law that he, the police officer, is sworn to uphold. But how can we respect the law if we don’t even know and understand the law? How can officers improve their law-enforcement practice unless citizens know when police are following the law? How is the legal system benefited if police can trample citizens’ constitutional rights with the consent of the people? Tim’s DVD will help tremendously in this regard.

In light of the climate that we all live in today, I cannot emphasize enough how important it is that we become familiar with our constitutional rights and responsibilities. If enough of the American people would learn these constitutional principles, they could stem the growing tide of unconstitutional conduct by our public servants, including, and especially, by those in law enforcement.

Here is where you can order the DVD, “Police Contact: How To Respond,” by Attorney Tim Baldwin.

Police Contact: How To Respond

© Chuck Baldwin

If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link.

 

 

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

CIA Just Released This Secret 9/11 Report That Reveals Major ‘Systemic Problems’

The CIA declassified and released a report Friday outlining multiple “systemic problems” within the agency before 9/11.

Some of the failures outlined in the nearly 500-page report, prepared by the CIA’s Inspector General (OIG) in 2005 include: missing the clear signs of an impending attack, not recognizing the potential of using aircraft as weapons, inadequate watchlisting of potential terrorists, problems with information sharing within the CIA and among the non-intelligence communities within the government, and the lack of gathering of human intelligence from the field.

Overall, the government watchdog found that the CIA and its officers “did not discharge their responsibilities in a satisfactory manner.”

The report in many aspects reached the same conclusions as the 9/11 Commission Report (2004), which was available to the public. The Senate and House Intelligence Committees also prepared a Joint Inquiry (2002) of the performance of the U.S. intelligence communities, which the OIG was asked to review and assess.

The CIA chose to declassify the OIG’s report, along with two responses from former CIA Director George Tenet, “to further contribute to the public record on these events.”

“The events of 9/11 will be forever seared into the memories of all Americans who bore witness to the single greatest tragedy to befall our homeland in recent history,” the CIA said. “The documents released today reflect differing views formed roughly a decade ago within CIA about the Agency’s performance prior to 9/11.”

In a June 2005 letter, Tenet called the OIG’s analysis “nonsense,” “simply in error,” “devoid of any information” from senior policy makers, and said that it “ignores” key facts, The Hill noted.

“Your report does not fairly or accurately portray my actions, or the heroic work of the men and women of the Intelligence Community,” he claimed. “It is simply not fair to make judgments about my performance without having a complete understanding of the facts.”

In the final section of the report, entitled “Issues Related to Saudi Arabia,” the OIG finds that “The team encountered no evidence that the Saudi government knowingly and willingly supported al Qaeda terrorists.” Most of this 30-page section is redacted.

Vice News reports: “Last October, French-born al Qaeda operative Zacarias Moussaoui, the suspected 20th 9/11 hijacker, made an explosive claim. He told lawyers for families of 9/11 victims suing the Saudi government that he had met with high-ranking members of the royal family who financed al Qaeda in the 1990s, including Saudi Arabia’s then intelligence chief Prince Turki al-Faisal, as well as longtime ambassador to the US Prince Bandar Bin Sulan, and Prince Salman, who became king earlier this year.”

The Saudi Embassy released a statement in February addressing Moussaoui’s claims:

There is no evidence to support Zacarias Moussaoui’s claim. The September 11 attack has been the most intensely investigated crime in history and the findings show no involvement by the Saudi government or Saudi officials. As confirmed by the 9/11 Commission, there is “no evidence that the Saudi government as an institution or senior Saudi officials individually funded the organization [Al-Qaeda].”

Moussaoui is a deranged criminal whose own lawyers presented evidence that he was mentally incompetent. His words have no credibility.

His goal in making these statements only serves to get attention for himself and try to do what he could not do through acts of terrorism – to undermine Saudi-U.S. relations.

911

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth