Tag: stories

New Documents Prove Hitlery Told Conflicting Stories About Video Blamed For Benghazi Attacks

New Documents Prove Hillary Told Conflicting Stories About Video Blamed For Benghazi Attacks – Daily Caller

.

.
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 
94%
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.”

.

.

Federal Judge: Hitlery’s Email Stories “Constantly Shifting” – Obama Regime Showed “Bad Faith” Providing Records

Hillary Clinton Email Stories ‘Constantly Shifting,’ Judge Says – Washington Times

.

.
Former Secretary Hillary Clinton and her State Department colleagues have given “constantly shifting” stories about her secret email account, a federal judge said Tuesday, finding there’s evidence the Obama administration showed “bad faith” in how it followed open-records laws.

Judge Royce C. Lamberth said it remains to be seen whether the government did try to obfuscate matters, but said there’s at least enough smoke that Judicial Watch, the conservative interest group suing to get a look at all of Mrs. Clinton’s records, should be allowed to press for more details about how the State Department made its decisions.

“Plaintiff is relying on constantly shifting admissions by the government and the former government officials,” Judge Lamberth said.

Mrs. Clinton declined to use a State.gov email account during her term as secretary, instead using an email account tied to a server she kept at her home in New York.

All of her messages that concerned official business were supposed to be archived by the State Department, but she kept them, only returning them in December 2014, nearly two years after leaving office and only at the prompting of the House committee probing the 2012 terrorist attack in Benghazi.

That meant that during her four years in office and nearly two years afterward, the State Department was not searching those documents in response to open-records requests from Congress or the public.

Last month, the State Department finally finished processing more than 30,000 pages of Mrs. Clinton’s emails and made them public on the department’s Freedom of Information Act web page – a mammoth undertaking that has put a treasure trove of information in the public’s eye.

Judicial Watch and others argue that some 30,000 other messages Mrs. Clinton sent from her secret address during her time in office, but which she has deemed private business, should also be reviewed by the government.

The State Department told Judge Lamberth it never misled the public because it never said it was searching Mrs. Clinton’s emails in the first place. The department said that meant it wasn’t acting in bad faith when it responded to open-records requests.

Judge Lamberth, though, said more evidence is needed before those conclusions can be reached.

“The government argues that this does not show a lack of good faith, but that is what remains to be seen, and the factual record must be developed appropriately in order for this court to make that determination,” he said in a brief ruling.

The Justice Department declined to comment on Judge Lamberth’s ruling, which marks the third legal black eye for the Obama administration in recent weeks.

Last week, a federal appeals court said the Justice Department was turning the law on its head to protect the IRS from taxpayers, rather than to protect taxpayers from the IRS.

And another judge issued a “show cause” order demanding to know why the government appeared to conceal documents in an open-records case brought against a top Obama climate adviser. Judge Amit Mehta, who serves on the district court in Washington, D.C., along with Judge Lamberth, raised the possibility of punishing the administration for its actions.

Judge Lamberth’s decision Tuesday joins that of Judge Emmet G. Sullivan, also in the district court in Washington, who earlier this year granted discovery in another case brought by Judicial Watch against the State Department.

Judge Sullivan even said he was inclined to order the State Department to demand all of Mrs. Clinton’s emails – including the 30,000 or so messages she said were private business, not public records, that she sent from her secret account during her time in office.

Judge Lamberth said he’ll wait to see what Judge Sullivan decides before moving ahead with discovery in his own case.

.

.