Yesterday, Wikileaks dumped more than 2000 emails relating to Clinton insider, John Podesta. One of the most startling documents I’ve seen was breakdown of all the benefits of the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran, emailed to Clinton’s top foreign policy advisor a couple weeks before the treaty was ratified. What was startling about it? Oh, just the part where it says that the billions of dollars in cash sent to Iran will allow them to spend it on terrorism — as if it’s a good thing!
This will transfer billions to Iran and enhance its funding for terrorism and its efforts to gain hegemony in the region.
Billions in funding for Iranian terrorism? How progressive. But here’s where it gets trippy.
The email was sent to Jake Sullivan, Clinton’s top foreign policy advisor, by the account “[email protected]”, which belongs to Stuart Eizenstat. It is confirmed that the name and the email belong to the same person because Eizenstat’s profile is listed on the same domain as was used in the email, COV.com.
COV.com is the website of the esteemed DC law firm, Covington and Burling. You might have heard of them because that is the law firm where the previous Attorney Gerneral, Eric Holder, worked at before heading to the Obama administration. And just one week before the Iranian nuclear deal was signed, Holder returned to work at the firm, where he is currently a partner.
None of that last paragraph about Holder is particularly relevant other than to illustrate exactly how powerful and prestigious Covington & Burling is, and how close they are to the Obama administration.
But why would a world-class law firm be cheering for international terrorism and helping to make the deal come to fruition by establishing ‘left cover’ through Hillary’s spin machine? Is that even legal? Could the author of the email, Stuart Eizenstat, be charged with terrorism by Sunni nations, or even sued in reciprocity of our new law which allows us to sue exporters of terror? I don’t have the answers — but what I do know is this is all shady as hell. And it gets worse.
It turns out that the pro-terror lawyer who was giving foreign policy advice to Clinton’s top foreign policy advisor might have illegally broke military clearances to send the email. It turns out, Mr. Eizenstat is a current employee of the Department of Defense, and has been since 2014. He is a member of the DoD Defense Policy Board, the group that advises the top players in the DoD. They are the most trusted independent analysts within the DoD.
Considering this guy is a DoD policy advisor, and in these emails he’s leaking policy advisory relating to a deal that hadn’t even been ratified at the time the email was sent, what are the odds that all of that information about the then-yet-to-be-signed nuclear treaty was classified at the time? Hell, what are the odds that it’s still classified? I’d say they odds are pretty high, because that’s some sensitive information.
I mean, do you actually think the DoD wanted us all to know that the Obama administration is officially a state sponsor of terror? If they didn’t want the public to acquire this info, then the information would have been classified. And if the info was indeed classified, then Mr. Eizenstat would be criminally culpable because he leaked it to someone’s personal Gmail account — Jake Sullivan’s. It most likely wouldn’t even matter if Jake Sullivan had the proper clearances to receive the briefing, because this was being sent to an unauthorized private email account owned by Google. This stinks to high hell and smells like espionage.
And the stench gets worse when you realize that Mr. Eizenstat is a Clinton loyalist who worked in the Clinton administration for the entirety of both terms, according to his bio at his law firm:
U.S. Ambassador to the European Union, Under Secretary of Commerce for International Trade, Under Secretary of State for Economic, Business and Agricultural Affairs, and Deputy Secretary of the Treasury in the Clinton Administration (1993-2001).
Does any of this seem even remotely kosher, to anyone but Mr. Eizenstat?
According to the leaked documents, Jake Sullivan ended up responding to Eizenstat’s original leak by saying that the he agreed with Eizenstat’s “bottom line” — which I assume means he thinks that more Iranian terrorism is benefit. According to Wikileaks, Sullivan said:
I would characterize the terms of the deal a bit differently from how you have, but my bottom line is the same as yours.
Eizenstat concluded the conversation by asking Jake to call him to talk about “BDS”, which is the anti-Zionist movement sweeping progressive campus intersectional activist networks by storm.
Our IP Address: