Search The Archives

Friday, May 26, 2017

Parsing Of What Appears To Be New Information on FBI Investigation of Hillary Clinton

How a dubious Russian document influenced the 

FBI’s handling of the Clinton probe

Taken from Washington Post

By Karoun Demirjian and Devlin Barrett May 24 at 3:02 PM 
Reviewer Note:  We will be examining this article written by the above authors in the Washington Post (link to article will be provided above).  This is an exercise of reviewing new information coming into the public eye / open sourced, as well as new information that may affect public opinion on several topics.

In the midst of the 2016 presidential primary season, the FBI received a purported Russian intelligence document describing a tacit understanding between the campaign of Hillary Clinton and the Justice Department over the inquiry into whether she intentionally revealed classified information through her use of a private email server.
Review Note:  Americans were never told this aspect of the Clinton Email investigation.  This is the first time that a "Russian Intelligence Document" has been introduced into the public arena / open sourced.  Why is this information being leaked out now, and how did WaPo grab this information?
The Russian document mentioned a supposed email describing how then-Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch had privately assured someone in the Clinton campaign that the email investigation would not push too deeply into the matter — a conversation that if made public would cast doubt on the inquiry’s integrity.
Reviewer Note:  This is a correct statement to make;  if such a document existed, then yes, Americans writ large would cast doubt on the Justice Department as a whole.  The question this statement leaves out there is "WHO in the Clinton Campaign did Loretta Lynch say this to?"  This item is conveniently left out.
Current and former officials have said that document played a significant role in the July decision by then-FBI Director James B. Comey to announce on his own, without Justice Department involvement, that the investigation was over. That public announcement — in which he criticized Clinton and made extensive comments about the evidence — set in motion a chain of other FBI moves that Democrats now say helped Trump win the presidential election.
Reviewer Note:  This is not what FBI Director Comey has testified under Oath on more than one occasion.  Director Comey never made mention of any "Russian Documents" that formed his opinion to not pursue criminal charges against Hillary Clinton.  What he did testify to on May 3, 2017.  In his testimony, James Comey stated that his decision not to pursue charges was determined and sealed once he learned that Attorney General Loretta Lynch had met in private with former President Bill Clinton.  No mention of a "Russian Document."
But according to the FBI’s own assessment, the document was bad intelligence — and according to people familiar with its contents, possibly even a fake sent to confuse the bureau. The Americans mentioned in the Russian document insist they do not know each other, do not speak to each other and never had any conversations remotely like the ones described in the document. Investigators have long doubted its veracity, and by August the FBI had concluded it was unreliable.
Reviewer Note:  WHAT Americans? Who?  And how would a fake Russian Document / Intelligence "confuse the bureau?"
The document, obtained by the FBI, was a piece of purported analysis by Russian intelligence, the people said. It referred to an email supposedly written by the then-chair of the Democratic National Committee, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.), and sent to Leonard Benardo, an official with the Open Society Foundations, an organization founded by billionaire George Soros and dedicated to promoting democracy.
Reviewer Note:  One can not simply dismiss the fact that Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz appears in nearly every Democrat "scandal."  At some point, there needs to be a true investigation into the circles and dealings of Rep. Wasserman Schultz.
The Russian document did not contain a copy of the email, but it described some of the contents of the purported message.
In the supposed email, Wasserman Schultz claimed Lynch had been in private communication with a senior Clinton campaign staffer named Amanda Renteria during the campaign. The document indicated Lynch had told Renteria that she would not let the FBI investigation into Clinton go too far, according to people familiar with it.
(Amanda Renteria is sought after by John Podesta)  
Reviewer Note:  If the above is true, why is this information just being reported now?  Is Congress aware of this?  Is the President and Department of Justice aware of this?  Inspector General?  And WHO are the "people familiar with it."   Again we see Wasserman Schultz name.
Current and former officials have argued that the secret document gave Comey good reason to take the extraordinary step over the summer of announcing the findings of the Clinton investigation himself without Justice Department involvement.
Reviewer Note:  Again this goes against James Comey's testimony on 5/3/2017.  Who are these current and former officials?  It against basic journalism principles to utilize anonymous sources without valid reason, and without explaining in some detail what those reasons are.  We are introduced to several "officials" but none are named, and at no time is the reason for anonymity explained.
Comey had little choice, these people have said, because he feared that if Lynch announced no charges against Clinton, and then the secret document leaked, the legitimacy of the entire case would be questioned.
Reviewer Note:  Once again, this contradicts the testimony of James Comey on 5/3/2017 where he stated specifically that his reason for his bizarre announcement was due to the meeting on the plane with Attorney General Lynch and former President Clinton.  
Bigger question:  WHO would be leaking such a document? Why would the FBI assume a secret document would be leaked?  By who?  And why would this discredit the FBI investigation?  If anything, the American public would likely understand the decision made if it was based off of this document.  Therefore, it is suspect that this article is written in such  a manner so as to suggest that the American public is unable to make important critical-thinking decisions based on evidence presented.
From the moment the bureau received the document from a source in early March 2016, its veracity was the subject of an internal debate at the FBI. Several people familiar with the matter said the bureau’s doubts about the document hardened in August when officials became more certain that there was nothing to substantiate the claims in the Russian document. FBI officials knew the bureau never had the underlying email with the explosive allegation, if it ever existed.
Reviewer Note:  Again, why keep reporting on a document that is deemed bad.  Who are the "several people familiar with the matter."  This is an example of steering opinion without a valid claim.  Citing ghost sources is improper reporting.
Yet senior officials at the bureau continued to rely on the document before and after the election as part of their justification for how they handled the case.
Reviewer Note:  Why even write the above.  It's been stated repeatedly, and again, does not provide sources or proof of validity.
Wasserman Schultz and Benardo said in separate interviews with The Washington Post that they do not know each other and have never communicated. Renteria, in an interview, and people familiar with Lynch’s account said the two also do not know each other and have never communicated. Lynch declined to comment for this article.
Reviewer Note:  "...and people familiar with Lynch's account..."  Vague and misleading.  Are we talking about her email account or her account (recollection) of what happened?  Who are the "people familiar with Lynch's account?"  Why again, are non-named sources used?
Moreover, Wasserman Schultz, Benardo and Renteria said they have never been interviewed by the FBI about the matter.
Reviewer Note:  This statement alone raises so many questions an entire article could be written on it alone.  The main question would be, why did the FBI fail to interview Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Loretta Lynch, or Benardo and Renteria?  Wouldn't the FBI want to know exactly what these four named individuals knew or didn't know since they were specifically named in a piece of "Russian Intelligence?"  
Comey’s defenders still insist that there is reason to believe the document is legitimate and that it rightly played a major role in the director’s thinking.
“It was a very powerful factor in the decision to go forward in July with the statement that there shouldn’t be a prosecution,” said a person familiar with the matter. “The point is that the bureau picked up hacked material that hadn’t been dumped by the bad guys [the Russians] involving Lynch. And that would have pulled the rug out of any authoritative announcement.”
Reviewer Note:  If you are confused by the above paragraph you are not alone.  Ignoring the fact that once again another unnamed source is used, if the "material" (I assume the Russian Document naming Wasserman and Lynch) had NOT been dumped by the (Russians) than who dumped it and how did the FBI obtain the information?  Was it an American source then?  And if it was NOT from Russia, and was a valid piece of intelligence, that brings us right back to why didn't the FBI investigate this evidence and question Wasserman Schultz, Lynch, Benardo and Renteria?  By not doing so, this does not lend credibility to the FBI and actually harms its case for being credible.  In addition, in what world does "valid" leaked intelligence become the backbone of NOT pursuing charges on someone not named in the document (Hillary Clinton)?  This statement by the Washington Post has a lot of flaws to it and truly needs to be clarified.
Other people familiar with the document disagree sharply, saying such claims are disingenuous because the FBI has known for a long time that the Russian intelligence document is unreliable and based on multiple layers of hearsay.
“It didn’t mean anything to the investigation until after [senior FBI officials] had to defend themselves,” said one person familiar with the matter. “Then they decided it was important. But it’s junk, and they already knew that.”
Reviewer Note:  WHICH Senior FBI Officials had to defend themselves?  When?  Where?  And why would they need to defend themselves against a document that is "... junk, and they already knew that."  This statement (which as this entire article does uses sources that are not named and no reasons given why they must remain anonymous) makes little sense;  it is hard to find a situation where any law enforcement official needs to "defend themselves" in terms of documents.  Even if there was such a situation, if the intelligence is "junk" then THAT is the defense.  This paragraph seems to be another item thrown in to try to persuade public opinion on the topic, without providing any valid sources or reasons for writing about the item without any proof.
An FBI spokesman declined to comment. Comey did not respond to requests for comment.
The people familiar with the Russian document spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss its contents. No one familiar with it asked The Post to withhold details about its origins to safeguard the source.
Reviewer Note:  This is the first time we are privy to the fact that sources wanted to remain anonymous due to not being authorized to talk about it.  We still are not sure if these are FBI officials, or officials from other Intelligence Community agencies.
Several of them said they were concerned that revealing details now about the document could be perceived as an effort to justify Trump’s decision to fire Comey, but they argued that the document and Comey’s firing are distinct issues. Most of the people familiar with the document disagree strongly with the decision to fire the director, but they also criticized current and former officials who have privately cited the document as an important factor in the decisions made by Comey and other senior FBI officials. Comey told lawmakers he would discuss it with them only in a classified session.
Reviewer Note:  Washington Post just spelled out the details of this "Russian Document" even though anonymous sources stated they didn't want the information out in the public.  It is not clear if the sources that are concerned with the document are the same ones that criticized FBI decisions based off of this mystery document.
Email not obtained
After the bureau first received the document, it attempted to use the source to obtain the referenced email but could not do so, these people said. The source that provided the document, they said, had previously supplied other information that the FBI was also unable to corroborate.
Reviewer Note:  So basically the FBI is admitting that they utilize bad informants in high-profile cases?
While it was conducting the Clinton email investigation, the FBI did not interview anyone mentioned in the Russian document about its claims. At the time, FBI agents were probing numerous hacking cases involving Democrats and other groups, but they never found an email like the one described in the document, these people said.y 
Reviewer Note:  So again, the FBI failed to interview those implicitly mentioned in Russian Intelligence information that, regardless if bogus, certainly named individuals that were likely suspects at some point and time.  And if not, then we really need to question why not.  FBI stating they were too busy with DNC "hacking" is funny, since Director Comey testified before Congress again, that the FBI had no access to FBI Email servers, and were relying 100% on a report given to them by a third-party DNC-hired computer forensics firm, without ever granting access to the DNC hardware.  Since when does the FBI relinquish such parts of a critical investigation?
Then on July 5, Comey decided to announce on his own — without telling Lynch ahead of time — that he was closing the Clinton email case without recommending charges against anyone. Aides to Comey said he decided to act alone after Lynch met privately with Bill Clinton for nearly a half-hour on an airport tarmac in Phoenix about a week earlier — and have since said privately the Russian document was also a factor in that decision.
Reviewer Note:  This seems to be the most accurate part of this article.
The appearance of possible conflict arising from the Phoenix meeting led FBI leadership to want to show it had reached the decision independently, without political interference from the Justice Department.
About a month after Comey’s announcement, FBI officials asked to meet privately with the attorney general. At the meeting, they told Lynch about a foreign source suggesting she had told Renteria that Clinton did not have to worry about the email probe, because she would keep the FBI in check, according to people familiar with the matter.
“Just so you know, I don’t know this person and have never communicated with her,’’ Lynch told the FBI officials, according to a person familiar with the discussion. The FBI officials assured her the conversation was not a formal interview and said the document “didn’t have investigative value,’’ the person said.
Reviewer Note:  Were ANY parts of the FBI investigation "formal interviews?"  As its been reported before Congress, there is an impression that almost all major witnesses and the target, Hillary Clinton, did not have "formal interviews" by any FBI Investigator.  If this in not an accurate statement, please feel free to correct my statement.
Nevertheless, the officials said, they wanted to give the attorney general what is sometimes referred to as a “defensive briefing’’ — advising someone of a potential intelligence issue that could come up at some future point.
The agents never mentioned Wasserman Schultz to Lynch but told her there was some uncertainty surrounding the information because of “possible translation issues,” according to a person familiar with the discussion.
Reviewer Notes:  Why not mention Wasserman Schultz?
Lynch told them they were welcome to speak to her staff and to conduct a formal interview of her, the person said. The FBI declined both offers.
‘I’ve never heard of him’
Renteria, a California Democrat, first heard of the Russian document and its description of her role when a Post reporter called her.
“Wow, that’s kind of weird and out of left field,’’ she said. “I don’t know Loretta Lynch, the attorney general. I haven’t spoken to her.’’
Renteria said she did know a California woman by the same name who specializes in utility issues. The Loretta Lynch in California is a lawyer who also did legal work for the Clintons decades ago involving the Whitewater investigation. Bloggers and others have previously confused the two women, including during Lynch’s nomination to be attorney general.
Wasserman Schultz and Benardo, the alleged emailers, were also perplexed by the Russian document’s claims.
Wasserman Schultz said: “Not only do I not know him — I’ve never heard of him. I don’t know who this is. There’s no truth to this whatsoever. I have never sent an email remotely like what you’re describing.’’
She added that she had met Lynch, the former attorney general, once briefly at a dinner function.
Benardo said of Wasserman Schultz: “I’ve never met her. I’ve only read about her.”
“I’ve never in my lifetime received any correspondence of any variety — correspondence, fax, telephone, from Debbie Wasserman Schultz,’’ he said. “If such documentation exists, it’s of course made up.’’
As for Renteria, Wasserman Schultz said she knew who she was from past political work but had “virtually no interaction” with her during the 2016 campaign. “I was definitely in the same room as her on more than one occasion, but we did not interact, and no email exchange during the campaign, or ever,’’ she said.
Reviewer Note:  This accounting of all parties named in the Russian Intelligence document all seem to be going above and beyond in the fact that they "don't know each other."  Generally, if someone is asked if they know someone and it's attached to some strange scandal, a simple "NO" would be the response.  Not an explanation of the rooms that they were in with the persons in question.
When asked, the individuals named in the document struggled to fathom why their identities would have been woven together in a document describing communications they said never happened. But others recognized the dim outlines of a conspiracy theory that would be less surprising in Russia, where Soros — the founder of the organization Benardo works for — and Clinton are both regarded as political enemies of the Kremlin.
“The idea that Russians would tell a story in which the Clinton campaign, Soros and even an Obama administration official are connected — that Russians might tell such a story, that is not at all surprising,” said Matt Rojansky, a Russia expert and director of the Kennan Institute at the Wilson Center. “Because that is part of the Kremlin worldview.”
Reviewer Note:  Why would the Russians plan a conspiracy theory that they know would never pass the smell-test by experts in the field of Russian Intelligence?
The secret intelligence document has attracted so much attention recently that Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) asked Comey about it during the director’s final public appearance in Congress as FBI director before he was fired.
Comey said that he had spoken with the heads of the congressional intelligence committees about the document privately but that it was too sensitive to discuss it in public.
“The subject is classified, and in an appropriate forum I’d be happy to brief you on it,” he told the Senate Judiciary Committee. “But I can’t do it in an open hearing.”
No such briefing occurred before he was fired.
Ellen Nakashima contributed to this report.

Thursday, May 25, 2017

Intelligence Report: The Murder of Seth Rich

🆘 Yesterday, Anonymous posted a video that outlines the conspiracy on Seth Rich and the DNC.  It also outlines the attempts to squash the truth about what happened, as well as a threat made towards our President.

The Anonymous video, IMHO, is valid.  The video I posted yesterday about Debbie Wasserman Schultz confirms this.  She is attempting to get a laptop back that is in custody of US Capitol Police.  That laptop belongs to Imran Awan, who is the target of an ongoing investigation.  That investigation includes Mr Awan, who is a DNC Information Technology (IT) specialist.  It is reported that Mr Awan is holding DNC members hostage with information he has, and has used the information he has to get his family / friends employed by Democrats at high-paying positions totaling over $4 Million and counting.  It is ALSO reported that Seth Rich gained access to DNC emails via a "back door" left open by a DNC IT specialist. Connect the Dots;  Mr Awan may be the IT Specialist that left that back door open.  It's Mr Awan's laptop that Debbie Wasserman Schultz wants to get back ASAP from US Capitol Police.  Why?  What's on that laptop that is so important? 

At this point, almost nothing else matters other than someone in the Trump Administration to view the contents of that laptop, preferably the CIA Director Pompeo who appears to be the least compromised person in Trumps Admin.  The information on the laptop needs to be made public as soon as possible to protect President Trump.  We need to push as best we can to make sure this happens.  We also need to protect Sean Hannity and ensure his show remains on-air.  He will be the last man standing with a large enough public audience to make this stick.  This, imho, is what and others are trying to make public.  This is my opinion based on public, open sourced intelligence. 

We also need to, again in my opinion, question why a professional public relations firm (spin doctors) were assigned to the Rich family by the DNC, directly.  It is my opinion that Public Relations firms are only deployed when there is a dire need to control a narrative.  This is what they do.  They are NOT Attorneys which, in most circumstances, are hired to PROTECT innocent family members.  Rather, Public Relations Firms are used to do crisis management and narrative control when an event occurs that would cause irreparable harm to an business or organization.  Rarely are they used to protect a family other than celebrities or high ranking politicians.  This action must be questioned.

Link to Debbie Wasserman Schultz Threatening US Capitol Police Chief:

Sunday, May 21, 2017

President Trump Delivers First Speech Overseas At Middle East Anti-Terrorism Summit

May 21, 2017
RIYADH, Saudi Arabia


I want to thank King Salman for his extraordinary words, and the magnificent Kingdom of Saudi Arabia for hosting today's summit. I am honored to be received by such gracious hosts. I have always heard about the splendor of your country and the kindness of your citizens, but words do not do justice to the grandeur of this remarkable place and the incredible hospitality you have shown us from the moment we arrived.

You also hosted me in the treasured home of King Abdulaziz, the founder of the Kingdom who united your great people. Working alongside another beloved leader-American President Franklin Roosevelt-King Abdulaziz began the enduring partnership between our two countries. King Salman: your father would be so proud to see that you are continuing his legacy-and just as he opened the first chapter in our partnership, today we begin a new chapter that will bring lasting benefits to our citizens.

Let me now also extend my deep and heartfelt gratitude to each and every one of the distinguished heads of state who made this journey here today. You greatly honor us with your presence, and I send the warmest regards from my country to yours. I know that our time together will bring many blessings to both your people and mine.
I stand before you as a representative of the American People, to deliver a message of friendship and hope. That is why I chose to make my first foreign visit a trip to the heart of the Muslim world, to the nation that serves as custodian of the two holiest sites in the Islamic Faith.

In my inaugural address to the American People, I pledged to strengthen America's oldest friendships, and to build new partnerships in pursuit of peace. I also promised that America will not seek to impose our way of life on others, but to outstretch our hands in the spirit of cooperation and trust.

Our vision is one of peace, security, and prosperity-in this region, and in the world. Our goal is a coalition of nations who share the aim of stamping out extremism and providing our children a hopeful future that does honor to God.

And so this historic and unprecedented gathering of leaders-unique in the history of nations-is a symbol to the world of our shared resolve and our mutual respect. To the leaders and citizens of every country assembled here today, I want you to know that the United States is eager to form closer bonds of friendship, security, culture and commerce.

For Americans, this is an exciting time. A new spirit of optimism is sweeping our country: in just a few months, we have created almost a million new jobs, added over 3 trillion dollars of new value, lifted the burdens on American industry, and made record investments in our military that will protect the safety of our people and enhance the security of our wonderful friends and allies-many of whom are here today.

Now, there is even more blessed news I am pleased to share with you. My meetings with King Salman, the Crown Prince, and the Deputy Crown Prince, have been filled with great warmth, good will, and tremendous cooperation. Yesterday, we signed historic agreements with the Kingdom that will invest almost $400 billion in our two countries and create many thousands of jobs in America and Saudi Arabia.

This landmark agreement includes the announcement of a $110 billion Saudi-funded defense purchase-and we will be sure to help our Saudi friends to get a good deal from our great American defense companies. This agreement will help the Saudi military to take a greater role in security operations.

We have also started discussions with many of the countries present today on strengthening partnerships, and forming new ones, to advance security and stability across the Middle East and beyond.
Later today, we will make history again with the opening of a new Global Center for Combating Extremist Ideology-located right here, in this central part of the Islamic World.

This groundbreaking new center represents a clear declaration that Muslim-majority countries must take the lead in combatting radicalization, and I want to express our gratitude to King Salman for this strong demonstration of leadership.

I have had the pleasure of welcoming several of the leaders present today to the White House, and I look forward to working with all of you.
America is a sovereign nation and our first priority is always the safety and security of our citizens. We are not here to lecture-we are not here to tell other people how to live, what to do, who to be, or how to worship. Instead, we are here to offer partnership-based on shared interests and values-to pursue a better future for us all.

Here at this summit we will discuss many interests we share together. But above all we must be united in pursuing the one goal that transcends every other consideration. That goal is to meet history's great test-to conquer extremism and vanquish the forces of terrorism.
Young Muslim boys and girls should be able to grow up free from fear, safe from violence, and innocent of hatred. And young Muslim men and women should have the chance to build a new era of prosperity for themselves and their peoples.

With God's help, this summit will mark the beginning of the end for those who practice terror and spread its vile creed. At the same time, we pray this special gathering may someday be remembered as the beginning of peace in the Middle East-and maybe, even all over the world.

But this future can only be achieved through defeating terrorism and the ideology that drives it.

Few nations have been spared its violent reach.
America has suffered repeated barbaric attacks-from the atrocities of September 11th to the devastation of the Boston Bombing, to the horrible killings in San Bernardino and Orlando.

The nations of Europe have also endured unspeakable horror. So too have the nations of Africa and even South America. India, Russia, China and Australia have been victims.

But, in sheer numbers, the deadliest toll has been exacted on the innocent people of Arab, Muslim and Middle Eastern nations. They have borne the brunt of the killings and the worst of the destruction in this wave of fanatical violence.

Some estimates hold that more than 95 percent of the victims of terrorism are themselves Muslim.

We now face a humanitarian and security disaster in this region that is spreading across the planet. It is a tragedy of epic proportions. No description of the suffering and depravity can begin to capture its full measure.

The true toll of ISIS, Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, and so many others, must be counted not only in the number of dead. It must also be counted in generations of vanished dreams.

The Middle East is rich with natural beauty, vibrant cultures, and massive amounts of historic treasures. It should increasingly become one of the great global centers of commerce and opportunity.
This region should not be a place from which refugees flee, but to which newcomers flock.

Saudi Arabia is home to the holiest sites in one of the world's great faiths. Each year millions of Muslims come from around the world to Saudi Arabia to take part in the Hajj. In addition to ancient wonders, this country is also home to modern ones-including soaring achievements in architecture.
Egypt was a thriving center of learning and achievement thousands of years before other parts of the world. The wonders of Giza, Luxor and Alexandria are proud monuments to that ancient heritage.

All over the world, people dream of walking through the ruins of Petra in Jordan. Iraq was the cradle of civilization and is a land of natural beauty. And the United Arab Emirates has reached incredible heights with glass and steel, and turned earth and water into spectacular works of art.

The entire region is at the center of the key shipping lanes of the Suez Canal, the Red Sea, and the Straits of Hormuz. The potential of this region has never been greater. 65 percent of its population is under the age of 30. Like all young men and women, they seek great futures to build, great national projects to join, and a place for their families to call home.

But this untapped potential, this tremendous cause for optimism, is held at bay by bloodshed and terror. There can be no coexistence with this violence. There can be no tolerating it, no accepting it, no excusing it, and no ignoring it.

Every time a terrorist murders an innocent person, and falsely invokes the name of God, it should be an insult to every person of faith.
Terrorists do not worship God, they worship death.

If we do not act against this organized terror, then we know what will happen. Terrorism's devastation of life will continue to spread. Peaceful societies will become engulfed by violence. And the futures of many generations will be sadly squandered.

If we do not stand in uniform condemnation of this killing-then not only will we be judged by our people, not only will we be judged by history, but we will be judged by God.

This is not a battle between different faiths, different sects, or different civilizations.

This is a battle between barbaric criminals who seek to obliterate human life, and decent people of all religions who seek to protect it.
This is a battle between Good and Evil.

When we see the scenes of destruction in the wake of terror, we see no signs that those murdered were Jewish or Christian, Shia or Sunni. When we look upon the streams of innocent blood soaked into the ancient ground, we cannot see the faith or sect or tribe of the victims-we see only that they were Children of God whose deaths are an insult to all that is holy.

But we can only overcome this evil if the forces of good are united and strong-and if everyone in this room does their fair share and fulfills their part of the burden.

Terrorism has spread across the world. But the path to peace begins right here, on this ancient soil, in this sacred land.

America is prepared to stand with you-in pursuit of shared interests and common security.

But the nations of the Middle East cannot wait for American power to crush this enemy for them. The nations of the Middle East will have to decide what kind of future they want for themselves, for their countries, and for their children.

It is a choice between two futures-and it is a choice America CANNOT make for you.

A better future is only possible if your nations drive out the terrorists and extremists. Drive. Them. Out.

DRIVE THEM OUT of your places of worship.
DRIVE THEM OUT of your communities.

DRIVE THEM OUT of your holy land, and


For our part, America is committed to adjusting our strategies to meet evolving threats and new facts. We will discard those strategies that have not worked-and will apply new approaches informed by experience and judgment. We are adopting a Principled Realism, rooted in common values and shared interests.

Our friends will never question our support, and our enemies will never doubt our determination. Our partnerships will advance security through stability, not through radical disruption. We will make decisions based on real-world outcomes - not inflexible ideology. We will be guided by the lessons of experience, not the confines of rigid thinking. And, wherever possible, we will seek gradual reforms - not sudden intervention.

We must seek partners, not perfection-and to make allies of all who share our goals.

Above all, America seeks peace-not war.

Muslim nations must be willing to take on the burden, if we are going to defeat terrorism and send its wicked ideology into oblivion.
The first task in this joint effort is for your nations to deny all territory to the foot soldiers of evil. Every country in the region has an absolute duty to ensure that terrorists find no sanctuary on their soil.

Many are already making significant contributions to regional security: Jordanian pilots are crucial partners against ISIS in Syria and Iraq. Saudi Arabia and a regional coalition have taken strong action against Houthi militants in Yemen. The Lebanese Army is hunting ISIS operatives who try to infiltrate their territory. Emirati troops are supporting our Afghan partners. In Mosul, American troops are supporting Kurds, Sunnis and Shias fighting together for their homeland. Qatar, which hosts the U.S. Central Command, is a crucial strategic partner. Our longstanding partnership with Kuwait and Bahrain continue to enhance security in the region. And courageous Afghan soldiers are making tremendous sacrifices in the fight against the Taliban, and others, in the fight for their country.

As we deny terrorist organizations control of territory and populations, we must also strip them of their access to funds. We must cut off the financial channels that let ISIS sell oil, let extremists pay their fighters, and help terrorists smuggle their reinforcements.

I am proud to announce that the nations here today will be signing an agreement to prevent the financing of terrorism, called the Terrorist Financing Targeting Center - co-chaired by the United States and Saudi Arabia, and joined by every member of the Gulf Cooperation Council. It is another historic step in a day that will be long remembered.

I also applaud the Gulf Cooperation Council for blocking funders from using their countries as a financial base for terror, and designating Hezbollah as a terrorist organization last year. Saudi Arabia also joined us this week in placing sanctions on one of the most senior leaders of Hezbollah.

Of course, there is still much work to do.

That means honestly confronting the crisis of Islamist extremism and the Islamist terror groups it inspires. And it means standing together against the murder of innocent Muslims, the oppression of women, the persecution of Jews, and the slaughter of Christians.

Religious leaders must make this absolutely clear: Barbarism will deliver you no glory - piety to evil will bring you no dignity. If you choose the path of terror, your life will be empty, your life will be brief, and YOUR SOUL WILL BE CONDEMNED.

And political leaders must speak out to affirm the same idea: heroes don't kill innocents; they save them. Many nations here today have taken important steps to raise up that message. Saudi Arabia's Vision for 2030 is an important and encouraging statement of tolerance, respect, empowering women, and economic development.

The United Arab Emirates has also engaged in the battle for hearts and souls-and with the U.S., launched a center to counter the online spread of hate. Bahrain too is working to undermine recruitment and radicalism.

I also applaud Jordan, Turkey and Lebanon for their role in hosting refugees. The surge of migrants and refugees leaving the Middle East depletes the human capital needed to build stable societies and economies. Instead of depriving this region of so much human potential, Middle Eastern countries can give young people hope for a brighter future in their home nations and regions.

That means promoting the aspirations and dreams of all citizens who seek a better life-including women, children, and followers of all faiths. Numerous Arab and Islamic scholars have eloquently argued that protecting equality strengthens Arab and Muslim communities.

For many centuries the Middle East has been home to Christians, Muslims and Jews living side-by-side. We must practice tolerance and respect for each other once again-and make this region a place where every man and woman, no matter their faith or ethnicity, can enjoy a life of dignity and hope.

In that spirit, after concluding my visit in Riyadh, I will travel to Jerusalem and Bethlehem, and then to the Vatican-visiting many of the holiest places in the three Abrahamic Faiths. If these three faiths can join together in cooperation, then peace in this world is possible - including peace between Israelis and Palestinians. I will be meeting with both Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.

Starving terrorists of their territory, their funding, and the false allure of their craven ideology, will be the basis for defeating them.
But no discussion of stamping out this threat would be complete without mentioning the government that gives terrorists all three-safe harbor, financial backing, and the social standing needed for recruitment. It is a regime that is responsible for so much instability in the region. I am speaking of course of Iran.

From Lebanon to Iraq to Yemen, Iran funds, arms, and trains terrorists, militias, and other extremist groups that spread destruction and chaos across the region. For decades, Iran has fueled the fires of sectarian conflict and terror.

It is a government that speaks openly of mass murder, vowing the destruction of Israel, death to America, and ruin for many leaders and nations in this room.

Among Iran's most tragic and destabilizing interventions have been in Syria. Bolstered by Iran, Assad has committed unspeakable crimes, and the United States has taken firm action in response to the use of banned chemical weapons by the Assad Regime-launching 59 tomahawk missiles at the Syrian air base from where that murderous attack originated.

Responsible nations must work together to end the humanitarian crisis in Syria, eradicate ISIS, and restore stability to the region. The Iranian regime's longest-suffering victims are its own people. Iran has a rich history and culture, but the people of Iran have endured hardship and despair under their leaders' reckless pursuit of conflict and terror.
Until the Iranian regime is willing to be a partner for peace, all nations of conscience must work together to isolate Iran, deny it funding for terrorism, and pray for the day when the Iranian people have the just and righteous government they deserve.

The decisions we make will affect countless lives.

King Salman, I thank you for the creation of this great moment in history, and for your massive investment in America, its industry and its jobs. I also thank you for investing in the future of this part of the world.

This fertile region has all the ingredients for extraordinary success - a rich history and culture, a young and vibrant people, a thriving spirit of enterprise. But you can only unlock this future if the citizens of the Middle East are freed from extremism, terror and violence.

We in this room are the leaders of our peoples. They look to us for answers, and for action. And when we look back at their faces, behind every pair of eyes is a soul that yearns for justice.

Today, billions of faces are now looking at us, waiting for us to act on the great question of our time.

Will we be indifferent in the presence of evil? Will we protect our citizens from its violent ideology? Will we let its venom spread through our societies? Will we let it destroy the most holy sites on earth? If we do not confront this deadly terror, we know what the future will bring-more suffering and despair. But if we act-if we leave this magnificent room unified and determined to do what it takes to destroy the terror that threatens the world-then there is no limit to the great future our citizens will have.

The birthplace of civilization is waiting to begin a new renaissance. Just imagine what tomorrow could bring.

Glorious wonders of science, art, medicine and commerce to inspire humankind. Great cities built on the ruins of shattered towns. New jobs and industries that will lift up millions of people. Parents who no longer worry for their children, families who no longer mourn for their loved ones, and the faithful who finally worship without fear.

These are the blessings of prosperity and peace. These are the desires that burn with a righteous flame in every human heart. And these are the just demands of our beloved peoples.

I ask you to join me, to join together, to work together, and to FIGHT together-BECAUSE UNITED, WE WILL NOT FAIL.

Thank you. God Bless You. God Bless Your Countries. And God Bless the United States of America.