[h=1]Benghazi Victim’s Father on Hillary Clinton: ‘She’s a ‘Scumbag’[/h]Kristinn Taylor Oct 24th, 2015 6:46 pm 359 Comments
The father of slain former Navy SEAL Glen Doherty who was killed in the 2012 Benghazi, Libya terrorist attack has strong words for former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton over her handling of Benghazi.
“She’s a scumbag, in my opinion,” said Ben Doherty in an interview with NECN published to coincide with Clinton’s testimony on Thursday before the House Select Committee on Benghazi.
Glen Doherty with his father Ben, family photo via WCVB-TV.
The father of slain former Navy SEAL Glen Doherty who was killed in the 2012 Benghazi, Libya terrorist attack has strong words for former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton over her handling of Benghazi.
“She’s a scumbag, in my opinion,” said Ben Doherty in an interview with NECN published to coincide with Clinton’s testimony on Thursday before the House Select Committee on Benghazi.
Glen Doherty with his father Ben, family photo via WCVB-TV.
“Well I think that she pulled all the troops out of the embassy, he had no backup. He burnt alive. She said it’s no big deal, it’s a big deal to me, he’s my son and I loved him.”
Glen Doherty’s mother and the former wife of Ben, Barbara Doherty, is one of the few Benghazi family members to speak out in support of Clinton, telling NECN:
“”They’re looking at the wrong place. If you read carefully what was going on, many people made many mistakes, which is normal in confusion. After a few days, the facts were out, and they’re really chasing the wrong person.””
“”They’re hoping to defeat her and it’s not going to work.””
The Doherty family is working to close a loophole that mandates single federal contractors carry insurance but does not pay out death benefits if the contractor has no children or spouse, reported the Boston Globe.“”They’re hoping to defeat her and it’s not going to work.””
“As an independent contractor who was unmarried and without children, Doherty was ineligible to receive death benefits afforded to military personnel under the Defense Base Act of 1941, although he was employed by the CIA, she said.
“The family is working with Congressman Stephen F. Lynch to craft a law that would remove those barriers.
“On Jan. 26, Lynch introduced The Glen Anthony Doherty Overseas Security Personnel Fairness Act.
““It is unacceptable that the Defense Base Act requires federal workers to take out an insurance policy before they are deployed overseas and accepts the payment of insurance premiums from those workers, but fails to provide death benefits to their families or estate solely based on marital and child status,” Lynch stated on his website.”
“The family is working with Congressman Stephen F. Lynch to craft a law that would remove those barriers.
“On Jan. 26, Lynch introduced The Glen Anthony Doherty Overseas Security Personnel Fairness Act.
““It is unacceptable that the Defense Base Act requires federal workers to take out an insurance policy before they are deployed overseas and accepts the payment of insurance premiums from those workers, but fails to provide death benefits to their families or estate solely based on marital and child status,” Lynch stated on his website.”
[h=2]Chuck Todd Calls out Cummings and Benghazi Democrats: Why Did You ‘Shield’ Hillary Clinton Instead of Ask Real Questions?[/h]SHARE
TWEET
EMAIL
BY: David Rutz
October 25, 2015 11:11 am
Meet The Press host Chuck Todd called out ranking Benghazi Select Committee member Elijah Cummings (D., Md.) and other Democrats Sunday for using so much of their time this week with Hillary Clinton to “shield” her rather than ask real questions about Clinton’s handling of the terrorist attack.
Less than 25 percent of the Democrats’ questions, according to the NBC show’s calculations, were actually “challenging,” Todd said. The hearing was referred to as “partisan” by many mainstream media outlets, but they chose to give it that label because of the Republicans’ tough questioning of Clinton, not Democrats consistently bashing the proceedings and saying “nothing new” was being learned.
“We tallied up 68 total questions to Secretary Clinton [from Democrats],” Todd said. “16 of them, at best, could we call challenging. Why did you guys choose a strategy of shield rather than a strategy of, really what Tammy Duckworth did, probably the one Democrat that did it the most, of conducting a hearing, asking questions about the security situation?”
“From the very beginning, Chuck, I said we were looking for the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth,” Cummings said. “In many instances, we found ourselves having to not defend Secretary Clinton but to make sure the record was complete, and I’m glad that the public had an opportunity to see all of that. When you look at what we were asking about, they were the things that went to Benghazi, the things that we were supposed to be dealing with from the very beginning.”
Cummings raised his voice on several occasions Thursday while decrying the proceedings and using his time with Clinton to praise her responses and slam Republicans for investigating her, at one point drawing applause for his remarks. Far-left website Salon called him “the real star” of the hearing.
TWEET
BY: David Rutz
October 25, 2015 11:11 am
Meet The Press host Chuck Todd called out ranking Benghazi Select Committee member Elijah Cummings (D., Md.) and other Democrats Sunday for using so much of their time this week with Hillary Clinton to “shield” her rather than ask real questions about Clinton’s handling of the terrorist attack.
Less than 25 percent of the Democrats’ questions, according to the NBC show’s calculations, were actually “challenging,” Todd said. The hearing was referred to as “partisan” by many mainstream media outlets, but they chose to give it that label because of the Republicans’ tough questioning of Clinton, not Democrats consistently bashing the proceedings and saying “nothing new” was being learned.
“We tallied up 68 total questions to Secretary Clinton [from Democrats],” Todd said. “16 of them, at best, could we call challenging. Why did you guys choose a strategy of shield rather than a strategy of, really what Tammy Duckworth did, probably the one Democrat that did it the most, of conducting a hearing, asking questions about the security situation?”
“From the very beginning, Chuck, I said we were looking for the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth,” Cummings said. “In many instances, we found ourselves having to not defend Secretary Clinton but to make sure the record was complete, and I’m glad that the public had an opportunity to see all of that. When you look at what we were asking about, they were the things that went to Benghazi, the things that we were supposed to be dealing with from the very beginning.”
Cummings raised his voice on several occasions Thursday while decrying the proceedings and using his time with Clinton to praise her responses and slam Republicans for investigating her, at one point drawing applause for his remarks. Far-left website Salon called him “the real star” of the hearing.
- BIG GOVERNMENT
- BIG JOURNALISM
- BIG HOLLYWOOD
- NATIONAL SECURITY
- BREITBART TV
- BREITBART SPORTS
- THE WIRES
- 2016 : THE RACE
[h=1]BEN CARSON: I’D ‘RELISH’ GENERAL ELECTION MATCHUP WITH HILLARY, THE ‘POSTER CHILD’ OF DISHONESTY[/h]
22826
25
619
by TONY LEE25 Oct 20153,430
Dr. Ben Carson would “relish” the opportunity to take on Hillary Clinton—whom he dubbed the “poster child” of dishonesty—in a general election.
On Breitbart News Sunday on Sirius XM Patriot channel 125, Carson, who is now the frontrunner in Iowa, told host and Breitbart News Executive Chairman Stephen K. Bannon that a contest versus Clinton would be the “most clear-cut election in history.”
He said Hillary Clinton’s campaign would be about the the “usual tax and spend, promise them everything, give them nothing policies.”
Carson also said a potential general election battle with Clinton would also allow him to “demonstrate to people the whole concept of dishonesty.”
“She’s the poster child for that,” Carson said.
A majority of Americans in numerous polls do not believe that Clinton is honest or trustworthy, and Carson said that he hopes he has been rising in the polls because “people are recognizing that I’m consistent and I’m truthful and I’m one of them.”
He added that he would also relish a general election matchup versus Clinton because “it would give me an opportunity to really explain to people what the impact is of the incredible amount of debt that has been piled on during the Obama administration,” especially the “deleterious impact” the country’s debt “has on savings and increasing one’s wealth.”
Why Congress needs to keep probing the Clinton cash register
The former first couple has been commingling public and personal business for years
Illustration on the need for Congress to investigate the Clinton finances by Linas Garsys/The Washington Timesmore >
By David N. Bossie - - Tuesday, October 27, 2015
Now that Hillary Clinton’s much anticipated congressional testimony is in the rearview mirror, the House Select Committee on Benghazi can move toward completing its investigation and issuing a final report. It’s also an appropriate time to urge standing congressional committees on both sides of the Capitol to press new investigations into a crony capitalism network the Clintons built inside the State Department. They ran a political cash register that blurred the lines between official government business and private enrichment and left behind many unanswered ethical questions.
The blueprint for this shakedown machine is laid bare in emails that the group I head, Citizens United, has been able to force into the public domain through Freedom of Information Act requests and subsequent lawsuits. Over the past several months, Citizens United has released many of these never-before-seen emails, and it prompted me to reminisce about the past.
Ads by Adblade
In the 1990s, I spearheaded Clinton-era investigations in Congress such as Whitewater and illegal foreign contributions to the Democratic Party and Clinton-Gore campaign, which resulted in 24 and 26 prosecutions, respectively. Much of what we’ve uncovered today mimics many of the patterns and behaviors that the Clintons and their cronies made infamous so many years ago.
Remember the Lincoln bedroom and coffees for donors inside the Clinton White House? Well at the Clinton State Department, wealthy interests who ponied up with big speech fees that enriched Bill Clinton or big donations to the former president’s charity got the same kind of access and preferential treatment.
The Washington Times, relying on documents obtained by Citizens United, reported last week on a troubling pattern of Bill Clinton collecting speech fees and donations in foreign countries within a few weeks of his wife making official state visits. While one might consider these coincidences, the 1990s taught us all that there are no coincidences when it comes to the Clintons and political or personal money. The possible coordination of government visits and private gain is one of many questions Congress still needs to probe.
Here are some other intriguing discoveries Citizens United unearthed inState Department emails:
• On two occasions over a 27-day period, the infamous private Clinton email server was experiencing enough difficulties to cause top Clinton aide Huma Abedin or individuals trying to communicate with her to use alternate email addresses. This raises critical questions about the server’s security and whether or not the system was down due to a hacking attempt.
• We discovered a new Huma Abedin personal email address that was used for official business. The email itself discusses an official State Department trip to Ireland in which Ms. Abedin helped arrange a dinner for Secretary Clinton where Clinton Foundation donors and a Teneo Holdings executive were also scheduled to attend. The extent to which this additional email address was used for official business is currently unknown and should be looked into by a congressional committee.
• Within one week in June 2012, Amitabh Desai with the Clinton Foundation inquired with senior State Department officials Cheryl Mills, Huma Abedin, Jake Sullivan, and Michael Fuchs about potential Bill Clinton paid speeches connected to interests relating to North Korea, Iran and the Congo. We also learned that would-be speech fees could be turned into donations to the Clinton Foundation depending on the political circumstances. • On Sept. 21, 2012 — 10 days after the terrorist attack in Benghazi — an email from Clinton Foundation staff to seniorState Department officials and others states: “Stella O’Leary called to say she saw [Hillary Rodham Clinton] this week and that HRC ‘firmly instructed’ her to urgently form a 501c3 called Friends of the Clinton Centre ” Why the sitting secretary of state would be focusing her top staff on setting up a 501c3 organization instead of the Benghazi attack has not been established. The Benghazi Committee should address this topic in their final report since they didn’t ask Mrs. Clinton about it last week.
• In July 2012, State Department Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills sent two emails to the Clinton Foundation that have since been classified. This begs the question of how often sensitive government information was forwarded to the Clinton Foundation and whether or not the FBI has contacted the Clinton Foundation about this revelation.
• Ms. Abedin makes clear in a November 2012 email that she was concerned about a “conflict” when it came to discussing an issue relating to Teneo Holdings and the Rockefeller Foundation in official State Department email traffic.
• A document production log indicates that several emails relating to the Benghazi attacks and the State Department’s dealings with Congress in the wake of the attacks are being withheld from the public in part or in full by the U.S. government. Citizens United intends to contest these privilege claims in court.
Citizens United filed its first FOIA request with the State Department for these records in May 2014, and we will continue to file new FOIAs based on our findings in the days, weeks, and months to come. In the meantime, I hope chairmen like Chuck Grassley and Jason Chaffetz, inspectors general, and the FBI continue to investigate the questions raised in these documents.
The former first couple has been commingling public and personal business for years
Illustration on the need for Congress to investigate the Clinton finances by Linas Garsys/The Washington Timesmore >
By David N. Bossie - - Tuesday, October 27, 2015
Now that Hillary Clinton’s much anticipated congressional testimony is in the rearview mirror, the House Select Committee on Benghazi can move toward completing its investigation and issuing a final report. It’s also an appropriate time to urge standing congressional committees on both sides of the Capitol to press new investigations into a crony capitalism network the Clintons built inside the State Department. They ran a political cash register that blurred the lines between official government business and private enrichment and left behind many unanswered ethical questions.
The blueprint for this shakedown machine is laid bare in emails that the group I head, Citizens United, has been able to force into the public domain through Freedom of Information Act requests and subsequent lawsuits. Over the past several months, Citizens United has released many of these never-before-seen emails, and it prompted me to reminisce about the past.
Ads by Adblade
In the 1990s, I spearheaded Clinton-era investigations in Congress such as Whitewater and illegal foreign contributions to the Democratic Party and Clinton-Gore campaign, which resulted in 24 and 26 prosecutions, respectively. Much of what we’ve uncovered today mimics many of the patterns and behaviors that the Clintons and their cronies made infamous so many years ago.
Remember the Lincoln bedroom and coffees for donors inside the Clinton White House? Well at the Clinton State Department, wealthy interests who ponied up with big speech fees that enriched Bill Clinton or big donations to the former president’s charity got the same kind of access and preferential treatment.
The Washington Times, relying on documents obtained by Citizens United, reported last week on a troubling pattern of Bill Clinton collecting speech fees and donations in foreign countries within a few weeks of his wife making official state visits. While one might consider these coincidences, the 1990s taught us all that there are no coincidences when it comes to the Clintons and political or personal money. The possible coordination of government visits and private gain is one of many questions Congress still needs to probe.
Here are some other intriguing discoveries Citizens United unearthed inState Department emails:
• On two occasions over a 27-day period, the infamous private Clinton email server was experiencing enough difficulties to cause top Clinton aide Huma Abedin or individuals trying to communicate with her to use alternate email addresses. This raises critical questions about the server’s security and whether or not the system was down due to a hacking attempt.
• We discovered a new Huma Abedin personal email address that was used for official business. The email itself discusses an official State Department trip to Ireland in which Ms. Abedin helped arrange a dinner for Secretary Clinton where Clinton Foundation donors and a Teneo Holdings executive were also scheduled to attend. The extent to which this additional email address was used for official business is currently unknown and should be looked into by a congressional committee.
• Within one week in June 2012, Amitabh Desai with the Clinton Foundation inquired with senior State Department officials Cheryl Mills, Huma Abedin, Jake Sullivan, and Michael Fuchs about potential Bill Clinton paid speeches connected to interests relating to North Korea, Iran and the Congo. We also learned that would-be speech fees could be turned into donations to the Clinton Foundation depending on the political circumstances. • On Sept. 21, 2012 — 10 days after the terrorist attack in Benghazi — an email from Clinton Foundation staff to seniorState Department officials and others states: “Stella O’Leary called to say she saw [Hillary Rodham Clinton] this week and that HRC ‘firmly instructed’ her to urgently form a 501c3 called Friends of the Clinton Centre ” Why the sitting secretary of state would be focusing her top staff on setting up a 501c3 organization instead of the Benghazi attack has not been established. The Benghazi Committee should address this topic in their final report since they didn’t ask Mrs. Clinton about it last week.
• In July 2012, State Department Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills sent two emails to the Clinton Foundation that have since been classified. This begs the question of how often sensitive government information was forwarded to the Clinton Foundation and whether or not the FBI has contacted the Clinton Foundation about this revelation.
• Ms. Abedin makes clear in a November 2012 email that she was concerned about a “conflict” when it came to discussing an issue relating to Teneo Holdings and the Rockefeller Foundation in official State Department email traffic.
• A document production log indicates that several emails relating to the Benghazi attacks and the State Department’s dealings with Congress in the wake of the attacks are being withheld from the public in part or in full by the U.S. government. Citizens United intends to contest these privilege claims in court.
Citizens United filed its first FOIA request with the State Department for these records in May 2014, and we will continue to file new FOIAs based on our findings in the days, weeks, and months to come. In the meantime, I hope chairmen like Chuck Grassley and Jason Chaffetz, inspectors general, and the FBI continue to investigate the questions raised in these documents.
How did you see what I wrote? You have me on ignore right? That's the 3rd time I caught you lying about using ignore. You're a grown man.....act like it.
Gowdy and his committee were beaten to a pulp by Hillary. Your tough guy hero Gowdy got his ass handed to him and that committee should disband out of embarrassment
[h=2]Hillary Clinton’s Benghazi Testimony: Style Versus Substance[/h]SHARE
TWEET
EMAIL
BY: Blake Seitz
October 29, 2015 5:00 am
Many journalists who covered Hillary Clinton’s testimony about the Benghazi terrorist attack last week were more interested in praising Clinton for her brilliance than in scrutinizing what she said, a Free Beacon supercut finds.
Clinton, who, by the way, is coming off of a fabulous ten-day stretch, was victorious, graceful, calm, articulate, impeccable, disciplined, and savvy, according to the theater critics covering her testimony.
Only a handful of journalists chose to scrutinize Clinton’s testimony. Those who did, like Steve Hayes of the Weekly Standard, found discrepancies.
Clinton said she knew within hours that the Benghazi event was a coordinated terrorist attack carried out by an “al-Qaeda-like group.” At the time, she told the public that it was a spontaneous reaction by locals to an anti-Islam video.
If they were not so busy talking about the hearing, reporters might have been able to explore why the nation’s top diplomat misled the public about a terrorist attack two months before a presidential election.
Transcript below:
STEVE HAYES: I would say the lead from the day so far is Hillary Clinton repeatedly offers false or misleading testimony, and journalists yawn.
STEVE KORNACKI: Hillary Clinton today taking a victory lap after her 11-hour marathon hearing on Benghazi yesterday. Through a mix of her discipline, political savvy, and some lucky breaks, she has managed to run the table
CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: They knew it was a terror attack, they knew that from Gregory Hicks who was on the ground in Tripoli. And yet, they go ahead and put Susan Rice on that weekend and tell a tale that is completely false.
TARA DOWDELL: She answered questions and she did so gracefully, she did so calmly, and she did so articulately.
MANU RAJU: There are little episodes from that hearing that could turn out to hurt her in a couple months. Particularly when she said that 90 to 95 percent of her emails were on State Department servers. We don’t really know where she came up with that figure.
JOHN BERMAN: I work in Manhattan, which is right next to Brooklyn, which is where the Clinton campaign has its headquarters. There was something between a sigh of relief and a shriek of joy coming from Brooklyn.
JULIE PACE: Absolutely, absolutely.
CHRIS WALLACE: Does that bother you, as Jim Jordan seemed to point out, that she was blaming it on the video publically and telling Chelsea it was an attack and telling the Egyptian prime minister—?
BOB WOODWARD: It better bother us.
AB STODDARD: What she did today was brilliant. She was an impeccable witness because there are no sound bites where she implodes.
STEVE HAYES: She was presented with her own words that contradicted everything they had said, and she had no answer for that. So if you care about substance and facts, she’s in trouble.
TWEET
BY: Blake Seitz
October 29, 2015 5:00 am
Many journalists who covered Hillary Clinton’s testimony about the Benghazi terrorist attack last week were more interested in praising Clinton for her brilliance than in scrutinizing what she said, a Free Beacon supercut finds.
Clinton, who, by the way, is coming off of a fabulous ten-day stretch, was victorious, graceful, calm, articulate, impeccable, disciplined, and savvy, according to the theater critics covering her testimony.
Only a handful of journalists chose to scrutinize Clinton’s testimony. Those who did, like Steve Hayes of the Weekly Standard, found discrepancies.
Clinton said she knew within hours that the Benghazi event was a coordinated terrorist attack carried out by an “al-Qaeda-like group.” At the time, she told the public that it was a spontaneous reaction by locals to an anti-Islam video.
If they were not so busy talking about the hearing, reporters might have been able to explore why the nation’s top diplomat misled the public about a terrorist attack two months before a presidential election.
Transcript below:
STEVE HAYES: I would say the lead from the day so far is Hillary Clinton repeatedly offers false or misleading testimony, and journalists yawn.
STEVE KORNACKI: Hillary Clinton today taking a victory lap after her 11-hour marathon hearing on Benghazi yesterday. Through a mix of her discipline, political savvy, and some lucky breaks, she has managed to run the table
CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: They knew it was a terror attack, they knew that from Gregory Hicks who was on the ground in Tripoli. And yet, they go ahead and put Susan Rice on that weekend and tell a tale that is completely false.
TARA DOWDELL: She answered questions and she did so gracefully, she did so calmly, and she did so articulately.
MANU RAJU: There are little episodes from that hearing that could turn out to hurt her in a couple months. Particularly when she said that 90 to 95 percent of her emails were on State Department servers. We don’t really know where she came up with that figure.
JOHN BERMAN: I work in Manhattan, which is right next to Brooklyn, which is where the Clinton campaign has its headquarters. There was something between a sigh of relief and a shriek of joy coming from Brooklyn.
JULIE PACE: Absolutely, absolutely.
CHRIS WALLACE: Does that bother you, as Jim Jordan seemed to point out, that she was blaming it on the video publically and telling Chelsea it was an attack and telling the Egyptian prime minister—?
BOB WOODWARD: It better bother us.
AB STODDARD: What she did today was brilliant. She was an impeccable witness because there are no sound bites where she implodes.
STEVE HAYES: She was presented with her own words that contradicted everything they had said, and she had no answer for that. So if you care about substance and facts, she’s in trouble.
Yep, style versus substance.
You have to love how this is playing out in the gaystream media.
These days, Washington is nothing but a script. In Hildabeast's case, the narrative was set long before her testimony:
"Hillary killed it!"
How? What did she say?
I don't know, she just killed it! Soooo presidential!
No seriously, what specifically did she say???
It doesn't matter! She killed it and made Gowdy looked like an ass!
But she lied. Much of this corrupt bitch's testimony were provable, documented lies.
Doesn't matter, man! She killed it!
They are trying to drag this ugly, unlikable corrupt whore over the finish line.
Of course the usual forum fools (vtard, Guesser, duhhhhhfinch etc.) are buying into the Gobbel-like propaganda because that's who they are and what they do.
Loser!@#0
You have to love how this is playing out in the gaystream media.
These days, Washington is nothing but a script. In Hildabeast's case, the narrative was set long before her testimony:
"Hillary killed it!"
How? What did she say?
I don't know, she just killed it! Soooo presidential!
No seriously, what specifically did she say???
It doesn't matter! She killed it and made Gowdy looked like an ass!
But she lied. Much of this corrupt bitch's testimony were provable, documented lies.
Doesn't matter, man! She killed it!
They are trying to drag this ugly, unlikable corrupt whore over the finish line.
Of course the usual forum fools (vtard, Guesser, duhhhhhfinch etc.) are buying into the Gobbel-like propaganda because that's who they are and what they do.
Loser!@#0
[h=1]Hillary 2.0[/h]Thomas Sowell | Oct 27, 2015
Many people may share Senator Bernie Sanders' complaint that he was tired of hearing about Hillary Clinton's e-mails. But the controversy is about issues far bigger than e-mails.
One issue is the utter disaster created by the Obama administration's foreign policy in Libya, carried out by Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State.
An even bigger issue is whether high officials of government can ignore the law and refuse to produce evidence when it is subpoenaed. If they can, then the whole separation of powers -- the checks and balances in the Constitution -- gives way to arbitrary government by corrupt officials who are accountable to no one.
This is not the first time Hillary Clinton has defied the law to cover up what she had done. When Bill Clinton was president, back in the 1990s, both he and Hillary developed the strategy of responding to charges of illegal actions on their part by stalling and stonewalling when either courts or Congress tried to get them to produce documents related to these charges.
Hillary claimed then, as now, that key documents had disappeared. Her more recent claim that many of her e-mails had been deleted was just Hillary 2.0. Only after three years of stalling and stonewalling on her part has the fact finally come out this year that those e-mails could be recovered, and now have been.
By this time, however, Hillary and her supporters used the same tactics that both Clintons used back in the 1990s -- namely, saying that this was old news, stuff that had already been investigated too long, that it was time to "move on."
That was Hillary 1.0. More recently Hillary 2.0 said, melodramatically, "What difference, at this point, does it make?"
One of the things that the former Secretary of State was now trying to cover up was the utter disaster of the Obama administration's foreign policy that she carried out in Libya.
Having intervened in Libya to help overthrow the government of Muammar Qaddafi, who was no threat to America's interests in the Middle East, the Obama administration was confronted with the fact that Qaddafi's ouster simply threw the country into such chaos that Islamic terrorists were now able to operate freely in Libya.
Just how freely was shown in September 2012, when terrorists stormed the compound in Benghazi where the American ambassador to Libya, Christopher Stevens, was staying. They murdered him and three other Americans who tried to defend him.
Moreover, the terrorists did not even have to go into hiding afterwards, and at least one of them was interviewed by journalists. That's how chaotic Libya had become.
Meanwhile, there was an American presidential election campaign in 2012, and Barack Obama was presenting himself to the voters as someone who had defeated Al Qaeda and suppressed the terrorist threat in the Middle East.
Obviously the truth about this attack could have totally undermined the image that Obama was trying to project during the election campaign, and perhaps cost him the White House. So a lie was concocted instead.
The lie was that the attack was not by terrorists -- who supposedly had been suppressed by Obama -- but was a spontaneous protest demonstration against an American video insulting Islam, and that protest just got out of control.
Now that Hillary Clinton's e-mails have finally been recovered and revealed, after three years of stalling and stonewalling, they showed explicitly that she knew from the outset that the attack that killed Ambassador Stevens and others was not a result of some video but was a coordinated terrorist operation.
Nevertheless, Hillary 2.0, along with President Obama and national security advisor Susan Rice, told the world in 2012 that the deaths in Benghazi were due to the video, not a terrorist organization that was now operating freely in Libya, thanks to the policy that got rid of the Qaddafi government.
Yet that key fact was treated by the media as old news, and what was exciting now was how well Hillary 2.0 outperformed the Congressional committee on television. If the corruption and undermining of the American system of Constitutional government eventually costs us our freedom, will the media say, "What difference does it make now?"
- Share on Facebook589
- 649 SHARES
Many people may share Senator Bernie Sanders' complaint that he was tired of hearing about Hillary Clinton's e-mails. But the controversy is about issues far bigger than e-mails.
One issue is the utter disaster created by the Obama administration's foreign policy in Libya, carried out by Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State.
An even bigger issue is whether high officials of government can ignore the law and refuse to produce evidence when it is subpoenaed. If they can, then the whole separation of powers -- the checks and balances in the Constitution -- gives way to arbitrary government by corrupt officials who are accountable to no one.
This is not the first time Hillary Clinton has defied the law to cover up what she had done. When Bill Clinton was president, back in the 1990s, both he and Hillary developed the strategy of responding to charges of illegal actions on their part by stalling and stonewalling when either courts or Congress tried to get them to produce documents related to these charges.
Hillary claimed then, as now, that key documents had disappeared. Her more recent claim that many of her e-mails had been deleted was just Hillary 2.0. Only after three years of stalling and stonewalling on her part has the fact finally come out this year that those e-mails could be recovered, and now have been.
By this time, however, Hillary and her supporters used the same tactics that both Clintons used back in the 1990s -- namely, saying that this was old news, stuff that had already been investigated too long, that it was time to "move on."
That was Hillary 1.0. More recently Hillary 2.0 said, melodramatically, "What difference, at this point, does it make?"
One of the things that the former Secretary of State was now trying to cover up was the utter disaster of the Obama administration's foreign policy that she carried out in Libya.
Having intervened in Libya to help overthrow the government of Muammar Qaddafi, who was no threat to America's interests in the Middle East, the Obama administration was confronted with the fact that Qaddafi's ouster simply threw the country into such chaos that Islamic terrorists were now able to operate freely in Libya.
Just how freely was shown in September 2012, when terrorists stormed the compound in Benghazi where the American ambassador to Libya, Christopher Stevens, was staying. They murdered him and three other Americans who tried to defend him.
Moreover, the terrorists did not even have to go into hiding afterwards, and at least one of them was interviewed by journalists. That's how chaotic Libya had become.
Meanwhile, there was an American presidential election campaign in 2012, and Barack Obama was presenting himself to the voters as someone who had defeated Al Qaeda and suppressed the terrorist threat in the Middle East.
Obviously the truth about this attack could have totally undermined the image that Obama was trying to project during the election campaign, and perhaps cost him the White House. So a lie was concocted instead.
The lie was that the attack was not by terrorists -- who supposedly had been suppressed by Obama -- but was a spontaneous protest demonstration against an American video insulting Islam, and that protest just got out of control.
Now that Hillary Clinton's e-mails have finally been recovered and revealed, after three years of stalling and stonewalling, they showed explicitly that she knew from the outset that the attack that killed Ambassador Stevens and others was not a result of some video but was a coordinated terrorist operation.
Nevertheless, Hillary 2.0, along with President Obama and national security advisor Susan Rice, told the world in 2012 that the deaths in Benghazi were due to the video, not a terrorist organization that was now operating freely in Libya, thanks to the policy that got rid of the Qaddafi government.
Yet that key fact was treated by the media as old news, and what was exciting now was how well Hillary 2.0 outperformed the Congressional committee on television. If the corruption and undermining of the American system of Constitutional government eventually costs us our freedom, will the media say, "What difference does it make now?"
http://dailycaller.com/2015/10/29/c...-would-say-clinton-lied-about-benghazi-video/
“CBS This Morning” host Charlie Rose was shocked Thursday morning when Florida Sen. Marco Rubio stood by his stance that the former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton misled Americans about the cause of the 2012 Benghazi terror attack.
“[Last night] I said Hillary Clinton lied about Benghazi,” Rubio said in a post-debate interview. “There’s no doubt about that, Charlie.”
Rose defended Clinton by blaming intelligence.
“The CIA was changing its own assessment of what happened there,” Rose told Rubio.
“That’s not accurate,” Rubio countered.
“What was very clear is that from the very early moments of that attack she knew that it was a terrorist attack, as she shared by email with various people, and yet she continued to perpetuate the lie that this was something —”
Rose was baffled as to why the former first lady would lie about Benghazi.
“If you’re calling her a liar by saying she perpetuated a lie, then why do you think she did that? What was her motive?” Rose asked.
Rubio laid blame for her lying on the 2012 re-election and how President Obama was trying to avoid any narrative that he wasn’t strong on terrorism after claiming al-Qaida was on the run.
The CBS host remained stunned: “You are saying, senator, that Hillary Clinton lied because she wanted to help Barack Obama in his re-election campaign. That’s a serious charge.”
“Yes. Well, it’s the truth,” Rubio responded. “That’s not only why she did it; that’s why everyone in the administration did it.”
“They didn’t tell the truth of what truly happened, and the families of those victims deserve better.”
So there you have it, not only was Rose shocked, baffled and stunned but he portrayed himself as class A ass.
“CBS This Morning” host Charlie Rose was shocked Thursday morning when Florida Sen. Marco Rubio stood by his stance that the former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton misled Americans about the cause of the 2012 Benghazi terror attack.
“[Last night] I said Hillary Clinton lied about Benghazi,” Rubio said in a post-debate interview. “There’s no doubt about that, Charlie.”
Rose defended Clinton by blaming intelligence.
“The CIA was changing its own assessment of what happened there,” Rose told Rubio.
“That’s not accurate,” Rubio countered.
“What was very clear is that from the very early moments of that attack she knew that it was a terrorist attack, as she shared by email with various people, and yet she continued to perpetuate the lie that this was something —”
Rose was baffled as to why the former first lady would lie about Benghazi.
“If you’re calling her a liar by saying she perpetuated a lie, then why do you think she did that? What was her motive?” Rose asked.
Rubio laid blame for her lying on the 2012 re-election and how President Obama was trying to avoid any narrative that he wasn’t strong on terrorism after claiming al-Qaida was on the run.
The CBS host remained stunned: “You are saying, senator, that Hillary Clinton lied because she wanted to help Barack Obama in his re-election campaign. That’s a serious charge.”
“Yes. Well, it’s the truth,” Rubio responded. “That’s not only why she did it; that’s why everyone in the administration did it.”
“They didn’t tell the truth of what truly happened, and the families of those victims deserve better.”
So there you have it, not only was Rose shocked, baffled and stunned but he portrayed himself as class A ass.
