Hillary is going to be indicted

 she

Hillary is going to be indicted

By Cathy Burke   |   Friday, 08 Jan 2016 04:39 PM

The FBI and intelligence community “would go ballistic” if there’s no indictment in the case of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s
A former U.S. Attorney predicts a Watergate-style showdown in the Department of Justice if Attorney General Loretta Lynch overrules a potential FBI recommendation to indict Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

“The [FBI] has so much information about criminal conduct by her and her staff that there is no way that they walk away from this,” Joseph diGenova, formerly the District of Columbia’s U.S. Attorney, told Laura Ingraham in a Tuesday radio interview. “They are going to make a recommendation that people be charged and then Loretta Lynch is going to have the decision of a lifetime.

“I believe that the evidence that the FBI is compiling will be so compelling that, unless [Lynch] agrees to the charges, there will be a massive revolt inside the FBI, which she will not be able to survive as an attorney general. It will be like Watergate. It will be unbelievable.”

DiGenova is referring to the Watergate scandal’s “Saturday Night Massacre” Oct. 20, 1973, when President Richard Nixon sacked Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox and Attorney General Elliot Richardson and Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus resigned in protest.

DiGenova is well-sourced throughout the law enforcement community and his assessment has to be taken seriously. But interviews with other knowledgeable Washington insiders present a somewhat less concrete scenario developing around the former secretary of state.

At the center of Clinton’s difficulties is her use of a private email account and a home-brew server located in her New York home to conduct official business while serving as America’s chief diplomat between 2009 and 2013. Several of her closest aides also used the private server.

Clinton clearly didn’t abide by federal regulations requiring officials like her to use government computers and email accounts to conduct official business and take all of the necessary steps to preserve all such correspondence concerning official business.

watergate_montage_2

As first reported by The Daily Caller News Foundation, Clinton emailed Center for American Progress President Neera Tanden Sept. 7, 2010, asking for advice on what she, President Barack Obama and Democratic campaign officials should do to prevent a Republican victory in the upcoming congressional elections.
“Do you and CAP have any ideas as to how to change the dynamic before it’s too late? Losing the House would be a disaster in every way,” Clinton told Tanden. The CAP chief responded at length with clearly partisan recommendations, noted her supposedly non-partisan think tank’s polling efforts to identify winning themes for Democrats and described her conversations relaying her advice to Obama and other senior White House officials.

On its face, the Sept. 7 Clinton email appears to be a violation of the Hatch Act, which bars partisan political activities by officials using government property while on official duty. But Clinton found a clever way to get around the law, according to a senior non-profit official with extensive experience investigating such activities. The official spoke on condition of anonymity.

First, that official said, by not preserving her email records until after she resigned as secretary of state, Clinton avoided an investigation by the Office of Special Counsel (OSC), which handles Hatch Act violations. The reason is simple — OSC has no authority over former federal employees in Hatch Act matters.

Second, by refusing to comply “with Federal Records Act requirements to use an approved system for preserving records, [Clinton] arguably did not engage in political activities while on official duty or while using federal resources because she communicated with a personal computer,” the official said.

In other words, “had Secretary Clinton used a State Department e-mail address and a government computer and had Secretary Clinton complied with federal record-keeping and open government laws, [her] violations would have been discoverable under the Freedom of Information Act and could have been remedied while Secretary Clinton was still in office.”

Thus, don’t expect a Clinton indictment for a Hatch Act violation.

But Clinton is far from out of the woods, according to a congressional source who is deeply involved in the multiple investigations of Clinton.  This source, who also spoke only on condition of anonymity, pointed to the hundreds of Clinton emails that contained classified information.

“Her problem is the sheer volume of emails that were deemed classified,” said this source. “Her first defense was that she didn’t send any classified information in her emails. But that claim has been clearly rendered false because so many of the emails were later marked classified.” obama_hillary_cash-thumb

As the Department of State has released the Clinton emails she provided after leaving office, more than a thousand were marked classified after being reviewed prior to their public release. So what about Clinton’s subsequent distinction that she sent no information in her emails that was “marked classified” when it was sent?

“The volume matters because a reasonable person knows somebody like the Secretary of State, who is allowed herself to classify materials, who has handled it for 25 years or more, at some point the law says you are responsible for recognizing classified material when you see it. That gets to the negligence issue,” the issue said.

Negligence is critical because Clinton signed a Non-Disclosure Agreement in 2009 regarding classified information that stated, among much else, that “Sensitive Compartmented Information involves or derives from intelligence sources or methods that is classified or is involved in a classification determination …”

Clinton and several of her closest aides must have read information “derived from intelligence sources or methods” on a daily or near-daily basis.Benghazi Massacre Blog copy

There is an ominous sentence buried in that agreement Clinton signed: “Nothing in this agreement constitutes a waiver by the United States of the right to prosecute me for any statutory violations.”

What if Clinton is indicted for negligence in handling classified information? DiGenova predicts a showdown within a couple of months that will put Lynch in the same hot seat that prompted Nixon to fire Cox for getting too close to the truth about Watergate.

A Republican with direct knowledge of the investigation predicted political chaos if Lynch doesn’t decide to prosecute Clinton, a chaos that “would be the gift that keeps on giving right through the election.”

With or without resignations of FBI officials to protest such a decision, there would be a blizzard of news releases from congressional GOPers condemning Lynch, followed by hearings in which both the attorney general and FBI Director James Comey would be put under oath and asked about their actions.

hillary vicious

 

YOU ARE NOT A PROPHET UNTIL YOU ARE WILLING TO REBUKE THE KING

Prophet

 

There is no longer any possibility of innocent Christian support for Obama.  There is no way the “prophetic movement” will have any legitimacy if it ignores the true role of prophets.

 It came to a head when I met with the leader of a famous revival organization.  I assumed that this would be the last place I would find compromise.  To my horror and surprise he warned me that my comments about Obama were opposite their culture.  In other words, I had to shut up about Obama or I couldn’t preach there anymore.

My response was immediate and direct.  “What if this is the same cheap grace, false honor excuse that the pastors of Germany used to remain silent while Hitler expanded his power?  What if God is ordering His vessels to rebuke Obama? Do you want to be one of those men of God with blood on his hands because you remained silent when you should have rebuked the tyranny?”  He said he agreed with me but I never heard from him again.

Turn on Christian television and it won’t be long before you see a false prophet today.  He will tell his victims that they are about to be blessed and favored.  Then he will make an utterly meaningless, high probability prediction.  It always sounds sickeningly similar.  “The Lord has shown me that you are about to be wealthy beyond your dreams.  You do not realize how much Daddy loves you and wants to bless you.”  

This kind of ministry, in this current crisis, is extreme denial bordering on insanity.  Christian television should be calling the Christians to action against the war on our values!both-extremes copy

Since the first misguided “Christian psychologist” discovered that Christians needed to feel valuable, we have been treated to an unending stream of toxic sludge that has left the army of God flabby, drowsy and AWOL during America’s greatest moral disaster.

At some churches, rolling on the floor, drooling while making animal noises is considered the “moving of the Spirit.”  Then there is the other extreme:  Pastors preach sermons that sound like a late night monologue, stringing together phrases straight out of fortune cookies, making sure that they end on time and leave the audience spiritually unscathed.

Both extremes carry the same lie: We have become too valuable for sacrifice.  We are too blessed for the Cross. We are too entitled to join the rest of the Christian world in persecution and holiness.  

God is sending the “Preachers of Los Angeles” and all the rest a solemn warning:  START LIVING AND TELLING THE TRUTH OR THE ANOINTING AND BLESSING ON YOU WILL VANISH. .  God is issuing a dire warning to the false prophets who infest the church: REPENT OR IT WILL COST YOU YOUR LIFE AND YOUR SOUL! 

Barrack Obama has left us no choice.  He never says anything good about Christians.  He never says anything bad about Islam. He foments racial hatred, destroys marriage, and respect for the police (he has given more due process to the terrorists in Guantanamo than to our cops).  He punishes Israel.   He is working to wipe out the freedoms and hopes of the next generation. charade-copy copy

He is a wounded animal bent on destroying everything we hold dear.  If the ministers of God had obeyed the Holy Spirit they would have risen up in one voice of holy outrage and driven the king out of office.

Moses rebuked Pharaoh.  Samuel rebuked King Saul.  Nathan rebuked David.  Daniel rebuked Nebuchadnezzar.   John the Baptist rebuked King Herod.   Stop it!  Don’t use the title prophet unless you are willing to rebuke Obama and his abomination.  Speak truth to power or you are nothing but a prophetic poser.

There are signs of hope.   A very successful pastor prepared to do a series based on the Wizard of OZ at his mega church.  He spent thousands on props.  He wanted to dazzle his congregation.   Then one night he woke up from a deep sleep and realized that God had left him.  He felt utterly devoid of God’s presence and peace In his life.  He despaired of life itself. 

In his desperation he cried out to God.  God was grieved by his entire ministry.  He had ceased telling the truth.   He repented to the bone.  The congregation joined him in tearing down the props as if they were idols.   “We were once a harmless congregation,” he said.  “Now the Holy Spirit is moving in our meetings with great power.  We are becoming a mighty army!”

 

Leading conservative/libertarian declares “Pray that Hillary gets nominated. She is our best hope

By Wayne Allyn Root

WayneAllynRoot_Head copy

If you’re a conservative, Libertarian, limited government Constitutionalist or patriot, pray for Hillary. She’s our best hope for 2016. I love Hillary Clinton. I’m rooting for Hillary. She is a gift from heaven. I pray for her nomination every morning.

No, I’m not a fan of Hillary. No, I don’t support her policies. No, I don’t want her as president. But I sure want her as the Democratic nominee. She is “the gift that keeps on giving.” Hillary has so much baggage her campaign should be sponsored by Samsonite.

If the GOP has any hope of winning in 2016, Hillary has to be the nominee. Before I get to the scandals, let’s start with the obvious. Hillary is old news, over the hill, tired, worn out, spoiled milk. She is just going through the motions. She doesn’t even look or sound like she cares. Hillary herself can’t think of a single compelling reason for why she should be president. She’s just been waiting around a long time. And she’s a woman. That’s it. That’s her reason.

She’s so old and entitled that the guy who managed her campaign for U.S. Senate, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, refuses to endorse her for president. He basically just said what I said. She’s old news. She has no new ideas. She offers America nothing new. That’s one of her closest allies speaking.

Every candidate needs a brand. Hillary’s brand is “Entitlement. It’s my time. Oh, and I’m a female.” Pray this is the Democratic nominee.

If Hillary is the nominee, she can be destroyed and branded with so many scandals, it’s like shooting fish in a barrel. Destroy her with her own words, “What difference does it make?” Those were her words in front of a congressional committee about the Benghazi tragedy. Four heroes were murdered. She participated in a coverup and all she could think to say was, “What difference does it make?” Meaning, those young heroes are all dead, so who cares?

Her own TV ads in 2008 bragged about her decision-making abilities at 2 a.m. when the important call comes in. Well, we now know what she said when that call came in during the attack on Benghazi. She heard our heroes were about to be murdered and she said, “What difference does it make?” Then, she went back to sleep. Pray this is the Democratic nominee.

I suggest TV ad campaigns featuring the parents of those four men abandoned by Hillary and Barack Obama and left to die at the hands of a radical Muslim mob, who clearly were supplied with their weapons by … Hillary and Obama. Let’s ask the parents how they feel about Hillary. Pray this is the Democratic nominee.

Is she scared of her role in Benghazi? Well, she erased 32,000 emails. She should be called “Tricky Dicky Hillary.” She was a lawyer on the committee investigating Richard Nixon’s scandals. She knew all about the erased Nixon audiotapes. She learned well. That must be where she got the idea to delete 32,000 emails and wipe the server clean. Like Nixon, she decided what we the people needed to know. Then she pressed “delete.” Run those TV ads 24 hours a day. Pray this is the Democratic nominee.Hillary-Allah

What difference did she make as secretary of state? Name her accomplishments? The world is in flames, the Middle East melted down, ISIS was born, Iran laughed in our face while building a nuclear program — all under her leadership. The world is a far more dangerous place. What difference did she make? Pray this is the Democratic nominee.

“We were dead broke when we left the White House.” There’s another great line. Let’s play it 24 hours a day. Maybe that’s why the Clintons stole the china and furniture on the way out the door. Maybe that’s why $6 billion went missing at the State Department under her watch. When you’re broke, $6 billion can make a big difference. Pray this is the Democratic nominee.

Hillary says she is a “woman of the people.” She’s one of us. But she hasn’t driven a car since 1996. Pray this is the Democratic nominee.

Hillary is all about the middle class. She has decided to make the middle class the centerpiece of her campaign for president. But “Mrs. Middle Class” demands $300,000 for a one-hour speech and a Gulfstream private jet to take her there and back.

She also gets the presidential suite at a five-star hotel, or she won’t show up. No Marriotts, Hiltons or Holiday Inns for Hillary. Run those facts 24 hours a day. Let’s see how middle-class women respond to her list of demands. Pray this is the Democratic nominee.

Hillary is all about honesty and transparency. But it turns out she bought 2 million fake Facebook fans. I guess those are the things you have to do when you ask middle-class college kids paying obscene tuition to pay for your $300,000 speeches and private jets. It must be hard to find real fans! Pray this is the Democratic nominee.

But I saved the best for last: The Clinton Foundation. The Clintons have raised more than $2 billion dollars in donations from the wealthiest people, companies and foreign governments in the world. She’s not “conflicted.” Hillary is bought and paid for. If she wins the presidency, she should wear pantsuits custom designed with patches from corporate sponsors. You know, like NASCAR. She should have Penske and Valvoline patches on her pantsuits. The White House should say: “America’s House, Brought to you by the government of Saudi Arabia.”

Hillary says she fights for the rights of women. Yet she accepts hundreds of millions in donations from Muslim governments that stone women, make them hide behind veils, don’t allow them to drive without a man in the car, don’t allow them to be educated, and arrest and whip them (occasionally even execute them) for being the victims of rape. She could be the biggest hypocrite in the history of politics.hillary vicious

Here’s a great line for TV commercials: “When a Muslim country gives a $10 million check to The Clinton Foundation, then stones a woman, what does Hillary say? ‘Thank you!’” Pray this is the Democratic nominee.

She says she fights for the rights of gays. She tweeted her horror at the new Indiana law protecting religious freedom. But she gladly accepted multimillion-dollar checks from Muslim governments that stone gays and drop them off roofs of buildings. This is the biggest fraud and hypocrite in the history of world politics. Pray this is the Democratic nominee.

Remember Hillary’s TV commercial about that important phone call at 2 a.m.? We need to run TV ads 24 hours a day asking, “When that call comes in at 2 a.m. and it involves one of those countries that gave millions to the Clinton Foundation, do you trust Hillary Clinton to make the decision that is best for America, for your interests, for your children? Hillary Clinton: bought and paid for by foreign governments.” Pray this is the Democratic nominee.

And if you’re a Democrat, you’d better start praying that Hillary is destroyed before she wins the nomination — and early enough that there is time to find and vet a credible replacement. This woman is a ticking time bomb. It’s not a matter of if, but only a matter of when, she implodes or some scandal comes rushing to the surface to blow her campaign to tatters. Maybe it’ll be Benghazi. Or the 32,000 deleted emails. Or maybe it’s the Clinton Foundation. Or maybe it’s her chief of staff and constant woman at her side, Huma Abedin. That story smells worse than all the others.

But I know one thing: Hillary is the most flawed candidate in the history of politics. And I’m praying on bended knees that Hillary gets the nomination.

I’m Wayne Allyn Root for Personal Liberty. See you next week. God bless America.

A TERRIFYING YEAR — YET THERE’S HOPE

 On the Money

A TERRIFYING YEAR — YET THERE’S HOPE

By Ben Stein

Away from the White House and Justice Department, America has been doing great things.

Christmas 2014
This has been a terrifying year. Unspeakable brutality by Islamist terrorists in the Middle East and in Africa. A level of barbarity towards the innocent that would have made Eichmann envious. A world that in large measure kowtows to the most violent and bloodthirsty and turns on the most innocent and law-abiding (think Hamas vs. Israel). In this year, no one demonstrated in the streets of Europe’s capitals against Islamists who murdered children by the thousands but did protest screamingly against the major guardians of law and decency in the world, the USA and Israel.

In this year, man’s essential mean-spiritedness ran riot, with fanatics of various stripes and Islamists brutalizing universities either physically or by the essential evil of their tortured so-called “thoughts.” This was at prestige universities in the United States. indonesianislamists

In 2014, the President and the Attorney-General, both men of color, sought to awaken the demons of racism for votes. That was not “just politics.” That was something like sedition from on high. People are fragile on the subject of race. To have the most exalted in the land stir up fear and anger about race over highly dubious claims of racism was in fact wildly dangerous racism in and of itself.

To see the “black power” flags run up on Pennsylvania Avenue by the mightiest of the mighty was a distressing spectacle. It got the GOP overwhelming control of Congress. I am sure it will get the GOP the White House if it continues, for even Hillary is not inevitable if the Democrat party makes itself the party of anti-white racist feeling.

Is America racist? Well, Americans are people. People dislike other people pushing them around. Black people do not like being pushed around and white people do not like being pushed around. That is not racism. That is basic humanity. Nations get into trouble when one sector pushes another sector around for grievances that were once horribly real, but no longer are.      

Civil rights activist Al Sharpton speaks at the National Action Network in Harlem, New York                                                                                                                                              
In other words, until Mr. Obama came along to capitalize on racial feelings, poll data showed Americans feeling pretty good about race relations. Now, Americans are fearful and anxious about race. This is a colossal step backwards. This is what happens when the President is beholden to extremists and agitators and must dance to the tune they call about race-baiting. I totally see how it came about. But it’s time to walk back. Time, high time, to back down from that race-baiting cliff.

In other words, when the President of the United States listens to Al Sharpton and takes him seriously, we are in a lot of trouble. We are a glorious, God-centered nation. We can rise above racial antagonisms. We have done it in the past. We can do it in the future, if, if, if politicians can step back from mortgaging America’s future to win votes. A big “if”…

So my gloomy thoughts run on this glorious Christmas in Rancho Mirage, with the stars painting the night sky behind my palm trees.

But I also have seen great things this year. My job is, in large part, to speak at events, often business-related events. And here I see magnificent things happening. I see auto dealers who have completely changed the way selling and financing and servicing of cars works. A business notorious for sharp practice is now a business people trust and love. It is fun to buy a car.

I have seen the tenacious oil people, who fought like warriors to drill—and now they have brought cheap gasoline to America—at huge cost to themselves. When you fill your tank for roughly two-thirds of what it would have cost a year ago, it’s no thanks to the government. No thanks to Hollywood. It is thanks to those oilmen whom the government loves to criticize and lambaste.gas-price

But the most surprising and impressive people I saw were the finance people. Cursed and double-cursed by the media, they have wrought miracles. In health care especially, they have financed breakthroughs in diagnosis and cures for disease, in management of pain, in making the lives of us humans longer, more pleasant, and pain-free. It is an inspiring sight to see a room filled with the best and brightest of our young people and middle-aged people, men and women of all races, seeking to find the best medicines and diagnostic tools and anodynes to keep the world’s people’s lives brighter.

Yes, they do it for money. That’s fine. That is a perfectly good motive. But they do it, and the meds get in the pipeline and heart disease and tumors get diagnosed early. This is what finance should be.

I have seen America working together for a better life for the whole world, the intelligence and money coming out of finance and into the hearts and bloodstreams of Earth’s people. It is an inspiring sight. On TV and on the campuses, people look for trouble and ways to cause pain. In the venture capital and private equity firms, without fanfare, without the mainstream media, lives are being made better. And if profits come, they pay for the retirements of firefighters and police and elementary school teachers. Capitalism is working beautifully. If we can keep the wolves of envy away from the door, man’s world will be sunnier.

mfrbanner

Ex-CIA Directors: Interrogations Saved Lives

CIA copy

Ex-CIA Directors: Interrogations Saved Lives

The Senate Intelligence investigators never spoke to us—the leaders of the agency whose policies they are now assailing for partisan reasons.

The Senate Intelligence Committee has released its majority report on Central Intelligence Agency detention and interrogation in the wake of 9/11. The following response is from former CIA Directors George J. Tenet, Porter J. Goss and Michael V. Hayden (a retired Air Force general), and former CIA Deputy Directors John E. McLaughlin, Albert M. Calland (a retired Navy vice admiral) and Stephen R. Kappes :

The Senate Intelligence Committee’s report on Central Intelligence Agency detention and interrogation of terrorists, prepared only by the Democratic majority staff, is a missed opportunity to deliver a serious and balanced study of an important public policy question. The committee has given us instead a one-sided study marred by errors of fact and interpretation—essentially a poorly done and partisan attack on the agency that has done the most to protect America after the 9/11 attacks.

Examining how the CIA handled these matters is an important subject of continuing relevance to a nation still at war. In no way would we claim that we did everything perfectly, especially in the emergency and often-chaotic circumstances we confronted in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. As in all wars, there were undoubtedly things in our program that should not have happened. When we learned of them, we reported such instances to the CIA inspector general or the Justice Department and sought to take corrective action.

The country and the CIA would have benefited from a more balanced study of these programs and a corresponding set of recommendations. The committee’s report is not that study. It offers not a single recommendation.

Our view on this is shared by the CIA and the Senate Intelligence Committee’s Republican minority, both of which are releasing rebuttals to the majority’s report. Both critiques are clear-eyed, fact-based assessments that challenge the majority’s contentions in a nonpartisan way.

What is wrong with the committee’s report?

First, its claim that the CIA’s interrogation program was ineffective in producing intelligence that helped us disrupt, capture, or kill terrorists is just not accurate. The program was invaluable in three critical ways:

• It led to the capture of senior al Qaeda operatives, thereby removing them from the battlefield.

• It led to the disruption of terrorist plots and prevented mass casualty attacks, saving American and Allied lives.

• It added enormously to what we knew about al Qaeda as an organization and therefore informed our approaches on how best to attack, thwart and degrade it.

A powerful example of the interrogation program’s importance is the information obtained from Abu Zubaydah, a senior al Qaeda operative, and from Khalid Sheikh Muhammed, known as KSM, the 9/11 mastermind. We are convinced that both would not have talked absent the interrogation program.

Information provided by Zubaydah through the interrogation program led to the capture in 2002 of KSM associate and post-9/11 plotter Ramzi Bin al-Shibh. Information from both Zubaydah and al-Shibh led us to KSM. KSM then led us to Riduan Isamuddin, aka Hambali, East Asia’s chief al Qaeda ally and the perpetrator of the 2002 Bali bombing in Indonesia—in which more than 200 people perished.

The removal of these senior al Qaeda operatives saved thousands of lives because it ended their plotting. KSM, alone, was working on multiple plots when he was captured.

Here’s an example of how the interrogation program actually worked to disrupt terrorist plotting. Without revealing to KSM that Hambali had been captured, we asked him who might take over in the event that Hambali was no longer around. KSM pointed to Hambali’s brother Rusman Gunawan. We then found Gunawan, and information from him resulted in the takedown of a 17-member Southeast Asian cell that Gunawan had recruited for a “second wave,” 9/11-style attack on the U.S. West Coast, in all likelihood using aircraft again to attack buildings. Had that attack occurred, the nightmare of 9/11 would have been repeated.

Once they had become compliant due to the interrogation program, both Abu Zubaydah and KSM turned out to be invaluable sources on the al Qaeda organization. We went back to them multiple times to gain insight into the group. More than one quarter of the nearly 1,700 footnotes in the highly regarded 9/11 Commission Report in 2004 and a significant share of the intelligence in the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate on al Qaeda came from detainees in the program, in particular Zubaydah and KSM.

The majority on the Senate Intelligence Committee further claims that the takedown of bin Laden was not facilitated by information from the interrogation program. They are wrong. There is no doubt that information provided by the totality of detainees in CIA custody, those who were subjected to interrogation and those who were not, was essential to bringing bin Laden to justice. The CIA never would have focused on the individual who turned out to be bin Laden’s personal courier without the detention and interrogation program.

Specifically, information developed in the interrogation program piqued the CIA’s interest in the courier, placing him at the top of the list of leads to bin Laden. A detainee subjected to interrogation provided the most specific information on the courier. Additionally, KSM and Abu Faraj al-Libi—both subjected to interrogation—lied about the courier at a time when both were providing honest answers to a large number of other critical questions. Since other detainees had already linked the courier to KSM and Abu Faraj, their dissembling about him had great significance.

Khalid Sheikh Muhammed, shown in an undated photo from the FBI.ENLARGE
Khalid Sheikh Muhammed, shown in an undated photo from the FBI. ASSOCIATED PRESS

So the bottom line is this: The interrogation program formed an essential part of the foundation from which the CIA and the U.S. military mounted the bin Laden operation.

The second significant problem with the Senate Intelligence Committee’s report is its claim that the CIA routinely went beyond the interrogation techniques as authorized by the Justice Department. That claim is wrong.

President Obama ’s attorney general, Eric Holder , directed an experienced prosecutor, John Durham, to investigate the interrogation program in 2009. Mr. Durham examined whether any unauthorized techniques were used by CIA interrogators, and if so, whether such techniques could constitute violations of U.S. criminal statutes. In a press release, the attorney general said that Mr. Durham “examined any possible CIA involvement with the interrogation and detention of 101 detainees who were alleged to have been in U.S. custody” after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. The investigation was concluded in August 2012. It was professional and exhaustive and it determined that no prosecutable offenses were committed.

Third, the report’s argument that the CIA misled the Justice Department, the White House, Congress, and the American people is also flat-out wrong. Much of the report’s reasoning for this claim rests on its argument that the interrogation program should not have been called effective, an argument that does not stand up to the facts.

Fourth, the majority left out something critical to understanding the program: context.

The detention and interrogation program was formulated in the aftermath of the murders of close to 3,000 people on 9/11. This was a time when:

• We had evidence that al Qaeda was planning a second wave of attacks on the U.S.

• We had certain knowledge that bin Laden had met with Pakistani nuclear scientists and wanted nuclear weapons.

• We had reports that nuclear weapons were being smuggled into New York City.

• We had hard evidence that al Qaeda was trying to manufacture anthrax.

It felt like the classic “ticking time bomb” scenario—every single day.

In this atmosphere, time was of the essence and the CIA felt a deep responsibility to ensure that an attack like 9/11 would never happen again. We designed the detention and interrogation programs at a time when “relationship building” was not working with brutal killers who did not hesitate to behead innocents. These detainees had received highly effective counter-interrogation training while in al Qaeda training camps. And yet it was clear they possessed information that could disrupt plots and save American lives.

1998 al Qaeda Press Conference

The Senate committee’s report says that the CIA at that point had little experience or expertise in capture, detention or interrogation of terrorists. We agree. But we were charged by the president with doing these things in emergency circumstances—at a time when there was no respite from threat and no luxury of time to act. Our hope is that no one ever has to face such circumstances again.

The Senate committee’s report ignores this context.

The committee also failed to make clear that the CIA was not acting alone in carrying out the interrogation program. Throughout the process, there was extensive consultation with the national security adviser, deputy national security adviser, White House counsel, and the Justice Department.

The president approved the program. The attorney general deemed it legal.

The CIA went to the attorney general for legal rulings four times—and the agency stopped the program twice to ensure that the Justice Department still saw it as consistent with U.S. policy, law and our treaty obligations. The CIA sought guidance and reaffirmation of the program from senior administration policy makers at least four times.

We relied on their policy and legal judgments. We deceived no one.

The CIA reported any allegations of abuse to the Senate-confirmed inspector general and the Justice Department. CIA senior leadership forwarded nearly 20 cases to the Justice Department, and career Justice officials decided that only one of these cases—unrelated to the formal interrogation program—merited prosecution. That person received a prison term.

The CIA briefed Congress approximately 30 times. Initially, at presidential direction the briefings were restricted to the so-called Gang of Eight of top congressional leaders—a limitation permitted under covert-action laws. The briefings were detailed and graphic and drew reactions that ranged from approval to no objection. The briefings held nothing back.

Congress’s view in those days was very different from today. In a briefing to the Senate Intelligence Committee after the capture of KSM in 2003, committee members made clear that they wanted the CIA to be extremely aggressive in learning what KSM knew about additional plots. One senator leaned forward and forcefully asked: “Do you have all the authorities you need to do what you need to do?”

In September 2006, at the strong urging of the CIA, the administration decided to brief full committee and staff directors on the interrogation program. As part of this, the CIA sought to enter into a serious dialogue with the oversight committees, hoping to build a consensus on a way forward acceptable to the committee majority and minority and to the congressional and executive branches. The committees missed a chance to help shape the program—they couldn’t reach a consensus. The executive branch was left to proceed alone, merely keeping the committees informed.

How did the committee report get these things so wrong? Astonishingly, the staff avoided interviewing any of us who had been involved in establishing or running the program, the first time a supposedly comprehensive Senate Select Committee on Intelligence study has been carried out in this way.

The excuse given by majority senators is that CIA officers were under investigation by the Justice Department and therefore could not be made available. This is nonsense. The investigations referred to were completed in 2011 and 2012 and applied only to certain officers. They never applied to six former CIA directors and deputy directors, all of whom could have added firsthand truth to the study. Yet a press account indicates that the committee staff did see fit to interview at least one attorney for a terrorist at Guantanamo Bay.

We can only conclude that the committee members or staff did not want to risk having to deal with data that did not fit their construct. Which is another reason why the study is so flawed. What went on in preparing the report is clear: The staff picked up the signal at the outset that this study was to have a certain outcome, especially with respect to the question of whether the interrogation program produced intelligence that helped stop terrorists. The staff members then “cherry picked” their way through six million pages of documents, ignoring some data and highlighting others, to construct their argument against the program’s effectiveness.

In the intelligence profession, that is called politicization.

As lamentable as the inaccuracies of the majority document are—and the impact they will have on the public’s understanding of the program—some consequences are alarming:

• Many CIA officers will be concerned that being involved in legally approved sensitive actions can open them to politically driven scrutiny and censure from a future administration.

• Foreign intelligence partners will have even less confidence that Washington, already hemorrhaging with leaks, will be able to protect their cooperation from public scrutiny. They will cooperate less with the United States.

• Terrorists, having acquired now the largest haven (in the Middle East and North Africa) and string of successes they have had in a decade, will have yet another valuable recruitment tool.

All of this means more danger for the American people and for our allies.

Anyone who has led a U.S. intelligence agency supports strong congressional oversight. It is essential as a check on leadership judgment in a profession that deals constantly with uncertainty, crises and the potential for surprise. We have all experienced and benefited from that in our careers, including at times when the judgment of overseers was critical.

When oversight works well, it is balanced, constructively critical and discreet—and offers sound recommendations. The Senate Intelligence Committee’s report is disrespectful of that standard.

It’s fair to ask whether the interrogation program was the right policy, but the committee never takes on this toughest of questions.

On that important issue it is important to know that the dilemma CIA officers struggled with in the aftermath of 9/11 was one that would cause discomfort for those enamored of today’s easy simplicities: Faced with post-9/11 circumstances, CIA officers knew that many would later question their decisions—as we now see—but they also believed that they would be morally culpable for the deaths of fellow citizens if they failed to gain information that could stop the next attacks.

Between 1998 and 2001, the al Qaeda leadership in South Asia attacked two U.S. embassies in East Africa, a U.S. warship in the port of Aden, Yemen, and the American homeland—the most deadly single foreign attack on the U.S. in the country’s history. The al Qaeda leadership has not managed another attack on the homeland in the 13 years since, despite a strong desire to do so. The CIA’s aggressive counterterrorism policies and programs are responsible for that success.