New State Department documents belatedly provided to the watchdog group Judicial Watch show that Hillary Clinton told different stories as secretary of state to different foreign leaders about a YouTube video that the Obama administration falsely blamed for the Sept. 11, 2012 Benghazi terrorist attacks.
The documents, which Judicial Watch obtained last month, include notes of calls that Clinton had with world leaders after the terrorist attacks.
One set of notes comes from a Sept. 15 telephone call Clinton had with then-Egyptian Foreign Minister Mohamed Amr. During the chat, Clinton referred to the “stupid, very offensive film” as the root cause of the Benghazi violence, which left four Americans dead.
“I have repeatedly, as has the President and other officials in our government, deplored not only the content of this stupid, very offensive film, but also intentional efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others,” Clinton told Amr.
“This runs counter to American history and the Constitution. But we’ve made clear that violent attacks are never justified in any religion,” she continued, adding that “we have to exercise more self-discipline.”
That call took place a day before then-United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice appeared on several Sunday morning talk shows to blame the “heinous and offensive video” as the impetus for the attacks.
Clinton also appeared to blame the film – “Innocence of Muslims” – in a Sept. 12 call with Afghan President Hamid Kharzi.
“We appreciate your statement in response to the video. Especially, the point that the people that make these kind of videos are a fringe group,” Clinton said during the call.
“We need to talk about religious feelings and insults and defamation,” she added.
Judicial Watch says that the State Department provided those call notes only last month in response to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. It is unclear why it took so long for the agency to hand over the documents.
Also unclear is why in other private conversations Clinton claimed that the video was not the spark for the Benghazi attacks.
During a Sept. 12 phone call with then-Egyptian Prime Minister Hisham Kandil Clinton said that the Benghazi attacks “had nothing to do with the film.”
“You’re not kidding. Based on the information we saw today we believe that group that claimed responsibility for this is affiliated with al-Qaeda,” Kandil responded to Clinton during their chat.
Clinton’s call with Kandil was referred to during Clinton’s Oct. 22 testimony in front of the House Select Committee on Benghazi. As was an email that Clinton exchanged with her daughter, Chelsea, on the night of the attack. In that email she acknowledged that an “Al Qaeda-like group” had carried out the attack.
But Clinton’s comments in those communiques were at odds with the public position that she and others in the Obama administration took in the days after the attack.
“Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet,” Clinton said in a White House-approved statement on the night of the onslaught. “The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others.”
Further complicating matters is Clinton’s statement during the Oct. 22 Select Committee hearing and during a Democratic debate that she believes that the video did play a role in the Bengahzi attacks.
“Congressman, I believe to this day the video played a role,” she told Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan
during the Benghazi hearing.
Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton said that the new documents show that Clinton offered inconsistent stories about the root cause of the attacks.
“There are two scandals here,” Fitton said in a statement.
“The first is Hillary Clinton was telling different stories to different foreign leaders about the Benghazi attack – including an admission that it was a terrorist attack.”
The second, he said “is the State Department’s cover-up of these documents.”
He accused the agency of playing “whack-a-mole” with the Benghazi documents.
“It is no wonder that two frustrated federal court judges granted Judicial Watch discovery into the Clinton FOIA issues.”
The Obama administration pursued a policy in Libya back in 2011 that ultimately allowed guns to walk into the hands of jihadists linked to the Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL) and al-Qaeda (AQ) in Syria, according to a former CIA officer who co-authored a report on behalf of the Citizen’s Commission on Benghazi (CCB), detailing the gun running scheme.
In Congress, the then-bipartisan group known as the “Gang of Eight,” at a minimum, knew of the operation to aid and abet America’s jihadist enemies by providing them with material support. So says Clare Lopez, a former CIA officer and the primary author of CCB’s interim report, titled How America Switched Sides in the War on Terror, speaking with Breitbart News.
The ripple effects of the illegal policy to arm America’s enemies continue to be felt as the U.S. military is currently leading a war against ISIS and AQ terrorists in Iraq and Syria, according to Lopez.
In late October, Defense Secretary Ash Carter said that the U.S. would begin “direct action on the ground” against ISIS terrorists in Iraq and Syria who may have reaped the benefits from the gun-running scheme that started in Libya.
“The Obama administration effectively switched sides in what used to be called the Global War on Terror [GWOT] when it decided to overthrow the sovereign government of our Libyan ally, Muammar Qaddafi, who’d been helping in the fight against al-Qaeda, by actually teaming up with and facilitating gun-running to Libyan al-Qaeda and Muslim Brotherhood [MB] elements there in 2011,” explained Lopez. “This U.S. gun-running policy in 2011 during the Libyan revolution was directed by [then] Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and [the late Libya Ambassador] Christopher Stevens, who was her official envoy to the Libyan AQ rebels.”
To avoid having the funds tracked back to the Obama administration, the arms flow to Libya was financed thru the United Arab Emirates, while Qatar served as the logistical and shipping hub, she noted.
“In 2012, the gun-running into Libya turned around and began to flow outward, from Benghazi to the AQ-and-MB-dominated rebels in Syria,” Lopez added. “This time, it was the CIA Base of Operations that was in charge of collecting up and shipping out [surface-to-air missiles] SAMs from Libya on Libyan ships to Turkey for overland delivery to a variety of jihadist militias, some of whose members later coalesced into groups like Jabhat al-Nusra and ISIS [also known as IS].”
Jabhat al-Nusra is al-Qaeda’s Syrian affiliate.
“The downstream consequences of Obama White House decisions in the Syrian conflict are still playing out, but certainly the U.S. – and particularly CIA – support of identifiable jihadist groups associated with the Muslim Brotherhood, Jabhat al-Nusra, Ahrar al-Sham, the Islamic State and other [jihadists] has only exacerbated what was already a devastating situation,” declared Lopez.
Some of the other weapons that eventually ended up in Syria included thousands of MAN-Portable-Air-Defense-System (MANPADS) missile units, such as shoulder-launched SAMs, from late dictator Muammar Qaddafi’s extensive arms stockpiles that pose a threat to low-flying aircraft, especially helicopters.
“It’s been reported that President Obama signed an Executive Order on Syria in early 2012 [just as he had done for Libya in early 2011], that legally covered the CIA and other U.S. agencies that otherwise would have been in violation of aiding and abetting the enemy in time of war and providing material support to terrorism,” notes Lopez. “Still, such blatant disregard for U.S. national security can only be described as deeply corrosive of core American principles.”
Libya Amb. Stevens was killed by jihadists in Benghazi on September 11, 2012, along with three other Americans.
Echoing a Benghazi resident who provided a first-hand account of the incident, retired U.S. Air Force Lt. Col. Dennis Haney, a CCB member, suggested to Breitbart News that Hillary Clinton’s State Department armed some of the al-Qaeda linked jihadists who may have killed the four Americans in Benghazi.
“The reason the U.S. government was operating in Libya is absolutely critical to this debacle because it reflects where America went off the tracks and literally switched sides in the GWOT,” points out Lopez. “This is about who we are as a country, as a people – where we are going with this Republic of ours.”
“There can be no greater treason than aiding and abetting the jihadist enemy in time of war – or providing material – weapons, funding, intel, NATO bombing – support to terrorism,” she continued. “The reason Benghazi is not the burning issue it ought to be is because so many at top levels of U.S. government were implicated in wrong-doing: White House, Pentagon, Intel Community-CIA, Gang of Eight, at a minimum, in Congress, the Department of State, etc.”
The State Department and the CIA did not respond to Breitbart News’ requests for comment.
The Democratic presidential frontrunner claimed she was not aware of any U.S. government efforts to arm jihadists in Libya and Syria.
Clinton did admit to being open to the idea of using private security experts to arm the Qaddafi opposition, which included al-Qaeda elements, but added that it was “not considered seriously.”
The 2011 “Gang of Eight” mentioned in this report was comprised of a bipartisan group of lawmakers from both chambers.
More evidence that Hillary Clinton used Sidney Blumenthal as her advisor has come to light as new State Department emails have emerged, despite her testimony that Blumenthal was never her advisor:
FOX NEWS – Newly released emails conflict with former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s 11-hour testimony before the Benghazi Select Committee, according to a review of the transcripts and public records.
One of the conflicts involves the role played by Clinton confidant Sidney Blumenthal.
Regarding the dozens of emails from him, which in many cases were forwarded to her State Department team, Clinton testified: “He’s a friend of mine. He sent me information he thought might be of interest. Some of it was, some of it wasn’t, some of it I forwarded to be followed up on. He had no official position in the government. And he was not at all my adviser on Libya.”
But a newly released email from February 2011 shows Blumenthal advocated for a no-fly zone over Libya, writing, “U.S. might consider advancing tomorrow. Libyan helicopters and planes are raining terror on cities.” The email was forwarded by Clinton to her deputy chief of staff Jake Sullivan with the question, “What do you think of this idea?”
A second email from former British Prime Minister Tony Blair in March 2011 also advocated for a no-fly zone, with Blair stating, “Please work on the non-fly zone, or the other options I mentioned. Oil prices are rising, markets are down. We have to be decisive.”
In the end, Clinton advocated for the no-fly zone and was able to gather support within the Obama administration to implement it.
In another email from March 5, 2012, Clinton appears to use Blumenthal as what is known in intelligence circles as a “cut out,” a type of intermediary to gather information, allowing the policymaker plausible deniability. In this case, the emails focused on the increasingly chaotic and fragmenting political landscape in Libya after dictator Muammar Qaddafi was removed from power.
In the one-page document, Blumenthal writes that Jonathan Powell, a former senior British government adviser to Blair, is “trying to replicate what we did in Northern Ireland by setting up secret channels between insurgents and government, and then, where appropriate, developing these negotiations.” This type of backchannel discussion helped bring about the 1998 Good Friday peace agreement in Northern Ireland.
Clinton responded two hours later. “I’d like to see Powell when he’s in the building,” with her staff responding, “Will follow up.” In both instances, Clinton’s actions further undercut sworn testimony to the Select Committee that Blumenthal was “not at all my adviser on Libya.”
Hey nothing to see here. Hillary had a great week, so said the media, when Republicans grilled her and exposed that she lied about Benghazi. So that’s what matters here, not getting to the truth.
So move along.
The Obama administration officials – with the awareness of the Secretary of State – were involved in violating a ban on arming rebels in Syria in an operation that mirrors the Iran-Contra Scandal during the Reagan Administration. But while the news media initiated a feeding-frenzy on Iran-Contra, they’re either yawning or helping the Obama administration in covering up the Benghazi-to-Syria arms transfers.
During Thursday’s House Select Committee on Benghazi hearing, the news media and the Democratic Party information machine appeared to be creating their desired narrative: the GOP is on a witch hunt to stop Hillary Clinton’s inauguration as President. But the hearings did manage to force the release of documents that were being hidden by the alleged conspirators.
Some of the many documents released by a watchdog group that investigates and exposes corruption and criminal activity by government officials and agencies provides evidence that then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and other senior officials, as well as President Barack Obama, deceived the American people regarding the Sept. 11, 2012, Benghazi U.S. consulate massacre. The pages released show that top administration officials were handed intelligence reports within hours of the attack that stated the Islamic terrorists’ actions had been planned up to 10 days before the attack and the goal was simply to to assassinate as many Americans as possible.
The documents also confirms the suspicions that U.S. government officials were well aware of weapons being shipped from Benghazi to Syria for use by rebel forces against the Al-Assad regime, according to Judicial Watch. In addition, the document-release contains an August 2012 analysis of intelligence that predicted the meteoric rise of al-Qaida in Iraq terrorists who morphed into the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. It also the predicted failure of Obama’s foreign policy aimed at regime change in Syria.
In an overly redacted copy of a memorandum dated Sept. 12, 2012 – the day after the Bengahzi slaughter of four Americans including a U.S. ambassador – the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) reported to Hillary Clinton, then-Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, the White House National Security Council and the U.S. military’s Joint Chiefs of Staff that the Islamic terrorists planned their attack about 10 or more days prior to the slaughter that occurred on the day the U.S. acknowledged the 11th Anniversary of the attacks in New York, Washington, D.C., and Pennsylvania that killed about 3,000 people.
The terrorists intended to attack the sparsely protected U.S. diplomatic mission and to assassinate as many American officials as possible. The motive for the attack appeared to be revenge for U.S. killing of Abu Yahya al-Libi, a high-level Al Qaida terrorist killed by U.S. drone strikes in North Waziristan.
According to Judicial Watch’s analysis of the documents, the Benghazi attack was planned and perpetrated by members of the Brigades of the Captive Omar Abdul Rahman (BCOAR). BCOAR is also responsible for past attacks on the Red Cross in Benghazi and the attack on the British Ambassador, they have approximately 120 members.” Rahman [a/k/a “The Blind Sheik”] is currently locked up in a federal prison in New York for his role in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center which killed six people in New York. He is serving a life sentence.
The redacted DIA memo identified the leader of BCOAR as being Abdul Baset (AZUZ). The memo reveals that he was sent to Libya to “core” al-Qaida’s replacement for Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawhari, to being creating al-Qaeda bases and training camps in Libya. Baset is described as not being “a charismatic leader, but rather just a violent radical.” The memo also states that the majority of BCOAR’s members are “under the age of 28 with a large number between the ages of 17-21 years of age.”
The DIA reported that BCOAR built their headquarters and a training facility in Libyan city of Derna. “They train in the mountains surrounding Derna where they have large caches of weapons. Some of these weapons are disguised as feeding troughs for livestock. They have SA-7 and SA-23/4 MANPADS, as well as unidentified missiles over two meters in length,” the memo states.
Judicial Watch, a group that has been successful in breaching the government’s “stonewalls,” obtained the documents after U.S. District Court Judge Katanji Brown Jackson ordered their release after the watchdog group’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the Department of Defense had been denied. Judicial Watch was then forced to file a lawsuit for the requested documents and related material.
The documents totally contradict statements made by Hillary Clinton and other national security and diplomatic officials appointed by President Obama about the Benghazi attack.They claims the murder of four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, and the destruction of American property was a result of anger by Muslim civilians who were enraged by obscure YouTube video by an American filmmaker that denigrated the Muslim religion.
“These documents… point to [the] connection between the collapse in Libya and the ISIS war – and confirm that the U.S. knew remarkable details about the transfer of arms from Benghazi to Syrian jihadists,” stated Tom Fitton.
It wasn’t until faced with overwhelming evidence that President Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and other members of the administration finally conceded that the attack was perpetrated by a group of Islamic terrorists.
In response to the documents, Judicial Watch’s President Tom Fitton said, “These documents are jaw-dropping. No wonder we had to file more FOIA lawsuits and wait over two years for them. If the American people had known the truth – that Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and other top administration officials knew that the Benghazi attack was an al-Qaida terrorist attack from the get-go – and yet lied and covered this fact up – Mitt Romney might very well be president. And why would the Obama administration continue to support the Muslim Brotherhood even after it knew it was tied to the Benghazi terrorist attack and to al Qaeda?”
“These documents also point to [the] connection between the collapse in Libya and the ISIS war – and confirm that the U.S. knew remarkable details about the transfer of arms from Benghazi to Syrian jihadists,” stated Tom Fitton. “These documents show that the Benghazi cover-up has continued for years and is only unraveling through our independent lawsuits. The Benghazi scandal just got a whole lot worse for Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.”
Vice President Joe Biden’s announcement on Wednesday that he would not run for president of the United States made it a foregone conclusion that the media would worship at the shrine of Hillary Clinton during her Benghazi testimony on Thursday.
They have no other choice. The precious must be protected at all costs, which means covering up for her lies, her calculated obfuscations, and her charmless faux-gravity.
Already the narrative has been set: Hillary Clinton was a victim of a political Benghazi committee dedicated to her destruction. Every Congressional committee in history has entailed some political motivation – would anyone argue that the Watergate investigations were completely apolitical? – but the media myopically focused on the idiotic comments of Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) before Hillary’s testimony, crafting the story of her victimization before it had even taken place.
Hillary, as always, is the poor, put-upon victim of a vast right-wing conspiracy. She set up a private email server and deleted relevant emails from it for purely political reasons; she pressed for a pointless invasion of Libya for political reasons, chortled at its conquest for political reasons, watched it descend into chaos while doing nothing for political reasons, and then allowed her ambassador to twist in the Libyan tornado without proper security for political reasons; finally, she covered up that disaster by lying about its causes for political reasons. But those who ask questions about such matters are partisan politicians.
As Charles Krauthammer rightly observed on Thursday evening, “We’re not going to get the facts, we’re not going to get the real story underlying it. We’re living in an age where what you say and its relation with the facts is completely irrelevant.”
But after 11 hours of lying – which is only slightly longer than the hours Hillary and her boss’ administration did virtually nothing as Americans died under fire in Benghazi – we may as well examine Hillary’s most important lies.
Hillary Cared Deeply About the Human Cost.
Hillary kept claiming that she cared deeply about her good friend Chris Stevens. At one point, she whipped out her pre-planned righteous indignation to complain, “I would imagine I’ve thought more about what happened than all of you put together. I’ve lost more sleep than all of you put together.” This was salt in the wound, the equivalent of Johnny Cochrane lamenting his worries over the fate of Nicole Brown Simpson.
Hillary admitted in her testimony on Thursday that her good friend Chris Stevens did not have her private email address, and that she could recall no conversations with him after he became ambassador to Libya. The night of his death, she wrote an email with the subject line: “Chris Smith,” conflating his death with that of diplomat Sean Smith. She didn’t bother speaking with survivors of the attacks until days later.
As to the notion that Hillary lost sleep, she apparently didn’t the night of the attack – she went home instead of sticking around at the State Department or heading over to the White House, because, she said, she had to prepare for what would be a rough rest of the week. She didn’t talk to then-Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta or Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey. We do know that she spent the night alone, a fact which led her to chortle. Hillary may have lost sleep over her failures later – clearly, she spent some time coming up with lies about a YouTube video.
Hillary Thought The Attacks Had Something to Do With a YouTube Video.
Hillary maintained on Thursday that she believed the attack still had something to do with the YouTube video, “The Innocence of Muslims.” But the night of the attack, she emailed Chelsea Clinton and told her that an al-Qaeda-like group had killed the ambassador. As Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) said to Clinton, “You tell the American people one thing. You tell your family an entirely different story.”
In fact, Hillary told the Egyptian Prime Minister the day after the attacks, “We know the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack. Not a protest.” Hillary tried to state that she had actually told people that some people were pinning the attack on the video, but she herself pinned the attacks on the YouTube video in videos released in Pakistan. She lied, because it was obvious that she had failed in her central duty to protect her diplomats in the most dangerous part of the world – a part of the world she had made more dangerous with her favorite invasion.
Hillary Didn’t Use Sidney Blumenthal As an Advisor.
Hillary Clinton had reams of email exchanges with hitman Sidney Blumenthal. Blumenthal had been banned from the Obama administration for his corruption and Clintonian loyalties. Hillary said that the emails were unsolicited. Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) shot that idiocy down easily: “You wrote to him, ‘Thanks and please keep them coming,’ ‘Greetings from Kabul and thanks for keeping this stuff coming, any other info about it?’ ‘What are you hearing now?’” Hillary then tried to amend her statement by saying they began as unsolicited emails. Hillary used Blumenthal as an advisor, and she routinely corresponded with him. Any implication to the contrary is absolutely false.
Hillary Was Transparent About Her Emails.
Hillary insisted again on Thursday that she’d been fully transparent about her emails. Even the State Department has rejected that nonsense repeatedly. The hearings did provide some perspective into just why Hillary might have deleted 30,000 emails, however, she claimed that her correspondence about Libya, which dropped dramatically from 2011 to 2012, was not because she cared less about the country – it was because she had people shuttling documents to her in suitcases. In fact, she said, she didn’t even have a computer in her office. A State Department email address could have confirmed whether any of that was true. Now we will presumably never know.
Chris Stevens Was Responsible for His Own Death.
The most despicable lie of the day came from Hillary’s defense of her own conduct via ripping Chris Stevens, the dead ambassador. She spent virtually the entire day suggesting that Stevens knew the risks of his job, that he accepted those risks, and that he died knowing those risks. She even said that Stevens “felt comfortable” on the ground. If that is true, it’s certainly odd that the State Department team in Libya asked for more security over 600 times. Hillary said she didn’t receive any of those requests and blamed her security team for not granting more security – all the while saying she took responsibility for what had happened.
Then, the capper: Hillary said that when Stevens wrote an email asking about whether the Benghazi compound would be closed, he was just being a sly jokester. She said, “One of the great attributes that Chris Stevens had was a really good sense of humor, and I just see him smiling as he’s typing this because it’s clearly in response to the email down below talking about picking up a few ‘fire sale items from the Brits.’” When told that those “fire sale items” were security barricades, Hillary answered, “Well, I thought it showed their entrepreneurial spirit.” Disgusting.
Hillary Clinton was largely responsible for a pointless invasion of Libya, which promptly turned into a terrorist-run hellhole. She was responsible for the security of her diplomats in Libya, but she didn’t provide for it. She had no correspondence with those diplomats on the ground but plenty of time for Sidney Blumenthal. When those diplomats and those who ran to help them were killed, she blamed a YouTube video. And finally, she used her jerry-rigged email server to selectively edit the material the public would see.
But don’t worry – Hillary’s the victim. Republicans are the perpetrators. And Chris Stevens is just one more bump in the road on her journey to the White House.
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton testified before the House Select Committee on Benghazi on Thursday.
The committee is investigating the events surrounding the terrorist attacks at the US consulate in Benghazi on September 11, 2012.
Four Americans lost their lives in the attack including Hillary’s “close friend” Ambassador Chris Stevens.
Many of the Republicans on the committee came across as ignorant and ill-prepared for the widely anticipated testimony by the former Secretary of State. The Republican panelists, with the exception of Chairman Trey Gowdy, Rep. Mike Pompeo and Ohio Congressman Jim Jordan, wasted their minutes droning on about trivial items. They could have stayed home and no one would have missed them. And by wasting time on insignificant material they only made serial liar Hillary Clinton look more poised and presidential.
What a waste of oxygen.
You’d think that the GOP would have done their research before the hearing but obviously that was too much to ask.
Here are three damning items the House Republican members forgot to mention during the 11 hour hearing.
1.) Al-Qaeda presence in Benghazi was undeniable.
The Islamist group held a MASSIVE MILITARY PARADE in Benghazi weeks before the deadly attack.
Radical Islamist groups including Shariah Guardians Brigade, an Al-Qaeda linked group, held a massive military parade in Benghazi just weeks before US Ambassador Chris Stevens was slaughtered at the US Consulate.
In June hundreds of people staged a mass demonstration in Benghazi’s Liberation Square in a show of force to demand the adoption of Islamic law (Sharia).
Waving black flags embossed with “I bear witness there is no God but Allah” and “Mohamed is the prophet of Allah,” Sharia guardians rallied for Islamic law.
Press TV reported:
Libyan Islamic groups, who played a major role in the revolution that unseated former dictator Gaddafi, were severely repressed under his rule. They believe the revolution was first started as part of Jihad against God’s enemies and that process is ongoing until the whole country is totally and utterly liberated from non-Islamic values.
The parade was held just days after the US Consulate in Benghazi was first bombed by an IED.
Ambassador Stevens joked that he may have to ask Qatar to help with security.
In his final journal entry the day of the attack Ambassador Stevens once again requested more security. He was murdered that night.
Hillary said they were “good friends.”
Some friend, huh?
3.) There is email evidence first reported at Judicial Watch that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton plotted to blame the Benghazi terrorist attack on the “God versus Allah” video by Pastor Jon Courson before they settled on the “Innocence of Muslims” YouTube video.
Not only did they lie about a video – They didn’t even know what video to lie about!
Before Hillary and Obama blamed “Innocence of Muslims” and jailed its director the Obama administration was going to blame the 9-11 massacre on “God Vs Allah” by Pastor Jon Courson.
Here is that video – It was not pulled by YouTube:
But they settled on “Innocence of Muslims” and jailed its director.
It was all a huge lie.
………………………..Click on image above to watch stream.
The Obama State Department suddenly discovered and turned over 1,300 pages of emails from former Ambassador Chris Stevens.
The emails were delivered just two days before Hillary’s testimony before the Benghazi committee.
1:12 PM – 20 Oct 2015
None of the seven previous congressional investigations on Benghazi had access to Ambassador Stevens’ emails.
And they were just released after more than a year of requests.
3:40 PM – 20 Oct 2015
The Politico reported:
The House Select Committee on Benghazi got a special delivery on Tuesday, two days before its high-profile hearing with former secretary of state Hillary Clinton – 1,300 more pages of emails from the State Department.
The Republican-led panel took to Twitter to vent about the seemingly late-in-the-game document dump of messages from Christopher Stevens, the ambassador to Libya who died in the Sept. 11, 2012, attacks on the consulate, along with three other Americans.
For months, the State Department has been releasing tens of thousands of pages of emails to the committee, but the GOP has consistently complained that the agency has dragged its feet in handing over all the relevant documents. State, for example, only a few weeks ago gave the committee about 900 Libya-related emails from Clinton, which the committee says it asked for at the start of its investigation well over a year ago.
Bernie Sanders continues to cut into Hillary Clinton’s once-commanding lead among Iowa Democrats, closing to just 7 points of the party front-runner in the first-in-the-nation caucus state, a new poll has found.
A survey released late Saturday afternoon by the Des Moines Register and Bloomberg Politics finds that Sanders, the fiery progressive senator from Vermont, trails Clinton 37% to 30%. The former secretary of state has lost one-third of her supporters since May.
Sanders’ support owes more to voters’ enthusiasm for his candidacy than opposition to Clinton, the poll found. A whopping 96% of his backers say they support him and his ideas, with just 2% saying their vote is motivated by a desire to stop a Clinton candidacy. As for the controversy surrounding Clinton’s use of email while leading the State Department, 61% of likely Democratic caucusgoers say the issue is not important to them.
Sanders has a deeper reservoir of support, the poll found. Thirty-nine percent of likely caucusgoers say their feelings about Sanders are very favorable, with just 8% having a negative view of him. That’s a sharp contrast to Clinton: 27% view her very favorably, but 19% view her negatively.
Saturday’s poll marks a remarkable eight-month climb for the self-proclaimed Democratic socialist from Vermont, who is garnering support in part from his anti-establishment rhetoric. Back in January, half of likely Democratic caucusgoers were unfamiliar with Sanders, and he was pulling in just 5% of support.
“What this new poll shows is that the more Iowans get to know Bernie, the better they like him and what he stands for. We’ve seen the same thing in New Hampshire and across the country,” Sanders campaign spokesman Michael Briggs said in a statement.
Meanwhile, Vice President Joe Biden, who has not declared whether he’ll seek the Oval Office next year, captured 14% of the vote, easily distancing himself from former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley (3%), former Virginia Sen. Jim Webb (2%) and former Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee (1%).
Speculation has heated up in recent weeks about whether Biden, 72, will join the race. He faces several obstacles in a potential run, including the need to raise enough campaign cash to compete with the Clinton machine and carving out enough support among key Democratic voting blocs. And he’s still grieving over the loss of his son, Beau Biden, who died of brain cancer three months ago; in a conference call with Democrats this week, Biden said he was still determining whether he had the “emotional fuel” to run.
But the vice president’s hesitation didn’t prevent his supporters from responding enthusiastically to Saturday’s poll.
“These results are the latest sign that voters respect and trust the Vice President and are looking for a candidate who speaks authentically and openly about the issues important to them,” according to a statement from “Draft Biden.” “They make clear the Vice President would have the support needed to mount a strong, competitive campaign.”
Bernie Sanders leads Hillary Clinton in a new poll of “usual” New Hampshire Democratic primary voters. According to Public Policy polling, a Democratic firm, Sanders has 42 percent support to Clinton’s 35 percent support.
The Vermont senator also has great favorability ratings among New Hampshire Democrats, with 78 percent viewing him favorably and just 12 percent viewing him unfavorably. Compare that to just 63 percent who say they have a favorable view of Clinton and 25 percent who say they have an unfavorable view.
PPP notes that Democrats of different ideological groups appear somewhat evenly split between Sanders and Clinton, but the former secretary of state is hurting among Democrats under the age of 65. Clinton leads with seniors, 51 percent to Sanders’s 34 percent, but Sanders does much better with younger voters, 45 percent to Clinton’s 29 percent.
This isn’t the first poll to show Sanders leading in New Hampshire, and according to the Real Clear Politics average of polls, Clinton’s lead in the Granite State has shrunk to just one point.
Vice President Joe Biden made a surprise visit to Washington, D.C.’s Naval Observatory on Saturday for a confidential talk with Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), CNN reported.
Biden’s return to the District comes amid buzz he is seriously weighing a 2016 Oval Office bid.
CNN said that two sources confirmed the pair’s face-to-face, the biggest indicator yet that Biden is seriously tempted by an Oval Office bid next year.
“The vice president traveled last minute to Washington, D.C. for a private meeting and will be returning to Delaware,” an aide told CNN. Biden spokeswoman Kendra Barkoff declined further comment on the alleged rendezvous.
CNN initially reported Saturday that Biden arrived in Washington around 11 a.m. and had planned on returning home to Wilmington, Del., later in the weekend.
Warren, a beloved figure in progressive circles, has resisted calls to mount her own presidential candidacy. She reportedly told WBZ radio in Boston on Friday that she considers the 2016 Democratic primary up for grabs.
“I don’t think anyone has been anointed,” said Warren, who has not yet endorsed a candidate.
Hillary Clinton, the heavy favorite for the party’s nomination, is currently grappling with sinking poll numbers amid voter concerns that she is neither a transparent nor trustworthy candidate.
Biden, 72, began mulling a third White House run following the death of his son Beau Biden in late May after a battle with brain cancer.
The vice president is widely expected to make a final decision next month. His entrance into the 2016 campaign would expand the Democratic field to six contenders.
Multiple national polls show Biden would have significant support from Democratic voters should he pursue the presidency next election cycle.
He previously ran for president in 1988 and 2008, both times dropping out early in the Democratic primary process.
Well, you heard it here first.
Today, the State Department released Benghazi-related email from the private server and one of the (at least) two private email accounts on which former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton conducted official business – recklessly and in violation of laws and guidelines relating to the exchanging and preservation of electronic communications. Within hours, the Obama administration was forced to concede that at least one of the emails contained classified information.
Mrs. Clinton has previously and dubiously claimed that she did not discuss classified information on her private email account(s). Despite today’s disclosure, she is standing by that claim as, apparently, is the State Department. Her rationale is that the information in question – which relates to suspects in the Benghazi attack and remains highly sensitive - was not classified “secret” at the time of the email exchange. Instead, it was upgraded to “secret” status just today by the FBI, which was plainly alarmed at the prospect of its disclosure.
I warned about this situation back in March, when Mrs. Clinton’s violation of federal laws and guidelines in connection with using private email to conduct official business first surfaced. The problem with the rationalization offered by Mrs. Clinton and the administration is twofold.
First, at the time of the Benghazi attack, Mrs. Clinton was secretary of state and an old hand at dealing with classified information. She thus had to have known at the time of the communication in question that information of the type she was dealing with should have been classified as “secret” even if it had not been so classified yet. Obviously, the FBI instantly recognized the significance of the information upon learning that it was about to be disclosed.
Second, it is frequently the case that highly sensitive information is not classified (or not yet classified); nevertheless, government officials are instructed that it is not to be disclosed publicly and not to be discussed on non-government email systems.
As I explained back in March:
Mrs. Clinton [in her press conference] stressed that she never stored classified documents on her private e-mail system. To the uninitiated, this sounded like the strongest point in her defense. Mostly, however, it is a red herring, exploiting the public’s unfamiliarity with how classified information works – and fueling no small amount of irresponsible speculation over the last few days about how the nature of her responsibilities meant classified material must have been stored on her private system. In the government, classified documents are maintained on separate, super-highly secured systems… [I]n general, Mrs. Clinton would not have been able to access classified documents even from a .gov account, much less from her private account – she’d need to use the classified system… That said, there are two pertinent caveats.
First, since we’re dealing with Clintonian parsing here, we must consider the distinction between classified documents and classified information – the latter being what is laid out in the former. It is not enough for a government official with a top-secret clearance to refrain from storing classified documents on private e-mail; the official is also forbidden to discuss the information contained in those documents. The fact that Mrs. Clinton says she did not store classified documents on her private server, which is very likely true, does not discount the distinct possibility that she discussed classified matters in private e-mails…
Second, most of the important but mundane information exchanged in government is not classified. It is a truism that too much information in Washington is classified. Still, it is also true that, for government officials, dealing with classified information is very inconvenient – you are usually not allowed to read it on your office computer, certainly not on your personal computer, not while commuting to work, not at home, etc. Thus, much of the information that government officials deal with is categorized as “sensitive but unclassified” (SBU).
To listen to the commentary over the past week, and to listen to Mrs. Clinton yesterday, one would think there are only two realms of government information: something is either a national defense secret or the seating chart for Chelsea’s wedding reception. Most information, though, is neither classified nor private. When I was a federal prosecutor, for instance, the SBU information I routinely dealt with included: grand-jury transcripts, the secrecy of which must be maintained by law; investigative reports by the FBI, DEA, NYPD, and other investigative agencies; wiretap affidavits that disclosed that investigations were underway, the suspects, the evidence, the wiretap locations, and the identity of government undercover agents, informants, and witnesses; memos outlining investigative or litigation strategies to deal with organized crime and terrorism organizations; plans to orchestrate arrests in multi-defendant cases where flight risk was a concern; financial information of subjects of investigations; personal information (sometimes including family financial and medical information) of lawyers and staff whom I supervised; contact information (including home addresses) of agents with whom I worked on cases often involving violent crime and public corruption; contact information (including home addresses) of judges in the event it was necessary to get a search warrant after hours; and so on.
None of that information was classified. I was permitted to – and needed to – have it ready to hand, but it was also my duty to maintain it in a secure, responsible manner… a duty that became even more important once I was a boss and was expected to set an example for junior lawyers and staff to follow. And mind you, I was just a government lawyer. I was not the secretary of state.
The inadvertent or unauthorized disclosure of SBU can do enormous damage. It can even get people killed. That is why the State Department has elaborate rules about SBU – rules that include instructing State Department employees to conduct their e-mail business via government e-mail accounts on government communications systems that have “the proper level of security control to provide nonrepudiation, authentication and encryption, to ensure confidentiality, integrity, and availability of resident information” (U.S. Dept. of State, Foreign Affairs Manual, vol. 12, sec. 544.3 ). As Fox News relates, it was on the basis of these concerns that Mrs. Clinton, as secretary of state, directed State Department employees in June 2011 to “avoid conducting official Department [business] from your personal e-mail accounts.”
Thus far, there has been disclosure of only a fraction of Mrs. Clinton’s existing private email – i.e., the email that she did not unilaterally delete despite being on notice that it was relevant to government investigations. Yet it is already clear that, as secretary of state, she did business in a way that was, at a minimum, grossly irresponsible… and quite possibly worse. She had to have realized the near certainty that an official of her stature would have been targeted for surveillance of her private emails by foreign intelligence services. Yet, in her determination not to leave a paper trail that might damage her political prospects, she ignored the risks. The Justice Department, which has prosecuted high government officials for mishandling national defense information, should be investigating – and that includes acquiring custody of Mrs. Clinton’s private server.
Conservative political pundit Charles Krauthammer reacted to the release of the first batch of Hillary Clinton emails, calling the “whole release” a “farce.”
“This is an echo of what her own press secretary said, who said there isn’t a shred of evidence. And as I’ve said there is no shred of evidence because she shredded the evidence. This whole release is a farce,” the syndicated political columnist said. “What is being released now… is stuff that was scrubbed and cleansed and decided upon, chosen by her own people, acting in her own interest, rather than… people with obligation to the public.”
“So we are getting the cleaned up version,” he continued. “And I think they are succeeding, the Clinton people. Because everybody is hungrily looking through stuff pre-scrubbed. They are not going to find anything. The Clinton’s are secretive and deceptive, but they are not stupid.”
Krauthammer then explained how he thought the process will benefit Clinton in the presidential election.
“Whatever is indicating has been scrubbed and removed. So we are going to have this long saga of the release. She will take the credit for, ‘I asked for it to be released, I wanted it to be released.’ But it’s the wrong stuff. And when people attack her later in the campaign, she will say it’s all been released, the press has looked at it,” he said.
Hillary Clinton slept through the president’s daily briefing on Benghazi. She didn’t wake up until 10:45 AM.
What difference does it make?
The State Department is releasing a batch of the Hillary emails, because the best way to make sure no one notices is to do it on the beginning of Memorial Day weekend. Hidden in one email is a pretty deplorable absence of interest and care from Hillary.
The night a U.S. ambassador was killed in a terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya, Hillary Clinton sent a message three senior State Department officials.
The recepients were Jake Sullivan, Deputy Chief of Staff to then-Secretary of State Clinton, Cheryl Mills, an adviser to Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign and Counselor and Chief of Staff to the Secretary, and Victoria Jane Nuland, Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs.
“Cheryl told me the Libyans confirmed his death. Should we announce tonight or wait until morning?” Clinton says in the email, time stamped 11:38 p.m. on Sept. 11, 2012.
The email had as its subject line: “Chris Smith.” The murdered ambassador was Chris Stevens.
The Secretary of State didn’t even know the name of the U.S. ambassador to Libya – even after terrorists stormed an American compound and killed him.
How deplorable is that. And this is who the Democrats want to make president? Disgusting.
Not that there was ever much doubt. Three days after the Benghazi attack, the White House admitted it had pressured Google and YouTube to yank “Innocence of Muslims” as some sort of terms-of-use violation. Google refused. A week after that, having failed to twist a major corporation’s arm into censoring a politically unhelpful bit of free speech on its behalf, the State Department started running ads in Pakistan denouncing the movie, in hopes that jihadi savages would be appeased by the show of national contrition and not target any more embassies. Also around this time, YouTube did agree to censor “Innocence of Muslims” by blocking it in Egypt and Libya, the two nations that saw the most violent attacks on U.S. diplomats on September 11, 2012. Hillary Clinton had to have known about and signed off on all this, we naturally assumed. And now here’s evidence that she did: Although the message below is vague, I assume it’s referring to the ban that Google imposed on the video in Africa.
Leaning on corporate cronies to suppress Americans’ speech for political ends would be a disqualifying offense for a candidate in a sane world.
Fun fact: On the very day that e-mail was sent, the man who made “Innocence of Muslims” was arrested by the feds on a “parole violation.” Hillary’s leisure reading in the weeks before that was interesting too:
From the Washington Post:
The Clinton Foundation reported Thursday that it has received as much as $26.4 million in previously undisclosed payments from major corporations, universities, foreign sources and other groups.
Thursday’s disclosure is one of a number of instances in recent weeks in which the foundation has acknowledged that it received funding from sources not disclosed on its Web site.
The ethics agreement was reached between the foundation and the Obama administration to provide additional transparency and avoid potential conflicts of interest with Hillary Clinton’s appointment as secretary of state.
The agreement placed restrictions on foreign government donations, for instance, but the foundation revealed in February that it had violated the limits at one point by taking $500,000 from Algeria.
There was one entity clearly associated with a foreign government that provided speaking fees, of $250,000 to $500,000 for a speech by Bill Clinton: The energy ministry in Thailand.
The U.S. Islamic World Forum also provided $250,000 to $500,000 to the foundation for a speech by Bill Clinton, according to the new disclosure. The event was organized in part by the Brookings Institution with support from the government of Qatar.
In addition, the list is studded with overseas corporations and foundations.
They included the South Korean energy and chemicals conglomerate Hanwha, which paid $500,000 to $1,000,000 for a speech by Bill Clinton.
China Real Estate Development Corp. paid the foundation between $250,000 and $500,000 for a speech by the former president. The Qatar First Investment Bank, now known as the Qatar First Bank, paid fees in a similar range. The bank is described by Persian Gulf financial press as specializing in high-net-worth clients.
The Telmex Foundation, founded by Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim, provided between $250,000 and $500,000 for a speech by Hillary Clinton.
Read the rest of the story here.
A House panel Tuesday formally requested Hillary Clinton to testify about the private server and email account she used while serving as secretary of state.
Rep. Trey Gowdy, chairman of the Select Committee on Benghazi, sent a request to Clinton’s personal attorney, David E. Kendall, requesting that Clinton appear before the committee no later than May 1 for a transcribed interview about the server and email.
The request comes after Kendall told Gowdy that the server had been wiped clean and that it would be impossible to recover the 30,000 emails Clinton deleted last year.
Gowdy, in his request to Kendall, also asked Clinton to “reconsider” her refusal to turn over the server to a neutral third party, which he called “highly unusual, if not unprecedented.”
Clinton said she only deleted personal emails and turned over every work-related message to the State Department, which is reviewing the data to filter out classified information.
“Because of the Secretary’s unique arrangement with herself as it relates to public records during and after her tenure as Secretary of State.” Gowdy wrote, “this Committee is left with no alternative but to request Secretary Clinton appear before this Committee for a transcribed interview to better understand decisions the Secretary made relevant to the creation, maintenance, retention, and ultimately deletion of public records.”
In Tuesday’s letter, Gowdy warned that Clinton’s decision not to turn over the server, “the House of Representatives as a whole will need to consider its next steps.”
Rep. Elijah Cummings, of Maryland, who serves as the top Democrat on the Benghazi panel, said in a statement to the Washington Examiner that Gowdy’s depiction of Clinton is inaccurate because Clinton has always been willing to talk to the panel under oath.
“Secretary Clinton agreed to testify months ago – in public and under oath – so the Select Committee’s claim that it has no choice but to subject her to a private staff interview is inaccurate,” Cummings said. “Rather than drag out this political charade into 2016 and selectively leak portions of a closed-door interview, the Committee should schedule the public hearing, make her records public and re-focus its efforts on the attacks in Benghazi.”
The House has the power to subpoena the server, but neither Gowdy nor House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, will say whether it will use that authority. Boehner has demanded Clinton turn over the server.
Gowdy said he wants a neutral party to examine the deleted emails to find out of there is any information related to the Sept. 11, 2012 terrorist attacks in Benghazi, Libya, that killed U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans. The House panel wants to examine the State Department’s role before, during and after the attack.
Gowdy noted in the letter that even though Clinton said she deleted the emails, it is “technically possible,” to retrieve them.