Opinions/Editorials
See other Opinions/Editorials Articles
Title: How the media protects Hillary
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://None
Published: Oct 22, 2015
Author: Me
Post Date: 2015-10-22 23:57:13 by Justified
Keywords: None
Views: 4987
Comments: 28
For two days all I have heard from the media is how this is just an attack on Hillary by the Gop. How Hillary stood up to the gop. Media is keeping a total on how money is wasted on the hearings. Blah blah blah. What about the four dead Americans? What about criminal act by Hillary? What about topsecret data loss? What about hold government figures accountable? I listen to some of it and Gowdy reamed her ass! He proved she lied, a lot. The commettee had barely started getting info from the state department and this was not even close to being done! Gowdy is a brave man!
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Justified (#0)
It doesn't help that two prominent alleged Republicans told the press during interviews that this was a partisan attack to hurt her election effort. I wonder what they got in return? Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Yeah that was McCarthy.
"For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly."---Romans 5:6
Politics is all the demoncrats know. They look at dead Americans on their watch as political exposure and not a matter to investigate. That's why they had to cover up their failures. "For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly."---Romans 5:6
She had pictures or video on them! That or she paid them off? People ask why I hate rinos more than dimwits? Because they always stab you in the back at just the right moment!
Omg just watch the local news. They showed Cummings tiff about this was nothing but gop attack on Hillary to derail her campaign. Then next line was its cost tax payers $4 million already. Not one word about all the lies she was caught in!
I read awhile back that it was Hilary's hacked emails that got our people murdered. Makes you wonder what other damage she has caused!
Hillary is consistently represented as another attractive energetic voice rather than having a continuous record of countercultural and political attack upon the nation. When there are destructive elements to be supported, she will take the opportunity to be available. There are some people who are physically or socially attractive but are ruled by a diffuse undercurrent of destructive hostility, war, and rebellion. She is one of those people. Now she has hired acting coaches to make her appear more likeable and help her cover her tracks.
That is a very correct statement . There has been no serious investigative reporting on Benghazi by the major media ;or if there has been ,it has been suppressed . As bad as all the lack of leadership ,the lies ,the ignoring of Ambassador Stevens requests for more security ,the relationship with Bloomenthal, the emails ,the ignoring requests for backup by the CIA annex ,the lies about the Mohammed video tape is ;this does not scratch the surface of the real scandal. As far as I can tell ,the only person who has touched on it was Senator Paul ,and he was dismissed by Evita in testimony and there has been no serious follow up. The investigation should begin with "why was Ambassador Stevens in Benghazi on 9-11-12 ,on the anniversary of the 9-11 attacks" ? Everyone knew the special mission (no it was not a consulate or an annex) was a security risk. So why was he there on that day. Evita has admitted in testimony that one of his missions was to gather and secure weaponry that had been in Q~Daffy's arsenal ,and some that the US had given to the Libyan rebels in their over throw of Q~Daffy . What is not mentioned is where were the weapons going once secured ? The official story is that the weapons were going to be destroyed . But that is not the truth . In March 2011 ,Ambassador Stevens became the official U.S. liaison to the al- Qaeda linked Libyan opposition, working directly with Abdelhakim Belhadj of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group. That group disbanned and many of it's fighters were involved in the attack that cost Stevens his life. November 2011,Belhadj, acting as head of the Tripoli Military Council, "met with so called 'Free Syrian Army' [FSA] leaders in Istanbul and on the border with Turkey" to provide money and weapons to the growing insurgency in Syria. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8919057/Lea ding-Libyan-Islamist-met-Free-Syrian-Army-opposition-group.html In a deal brokered by Stevens ,weapons from Libya were being shipped to Iskenderun ,a port in Southern Turkey .(the Libyan-flagged vessel Al Entisar,carrying "non-lethal " medical supplies to the rebels carried the weapons docked there on Sept. 6 ,2012 ). From there the weapons were then distributed to the FSA by the CIA . http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/21/world/middleeast/cia-said-to-aid-in-steering- arms-to-syrian-rebels.html?_r=0 Instumental in the early gains by FSA were Libyan MANPADs SA-7s that had been in Q~Daffy's arsenal . On the night of 9-11-12 Stevens met with the Turkish Consul General Ali Sait Akin, and escorted him out of the consulate front gate one hour before the assault began at approximately 9:35 p.m. local time. Why were they meeting there on that day ? It was to continue the supply chain of weaponry to FSA. Stevens clearly and knowingly put himself in harm’s way to be there, in Benghazi. Why did Stevens meet with the Turks in Benghazi and not Tripoli? Why would Stevens travel with little protection from Tripoli to Benghazi to meet with the Turks when he knew there was a risk to his personal safety? The committee did manage to ask why repeated requests for additional security were denied . But they did not explore the basic question 'why was Ambassador Stevens in Benghazi in the 1st place ? ' Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Or even both. That was so far out of line and unexpected that there HAS to be a backstory on it. IIRC,both just volunteered that "information" out of the blue. They weren't even asked if it were partisan politics at play. IF neither is reelected next time they come up to bat,it should be real interesting to see what jobs they get once they leave office. The funny part is the Clinton's can't be trusted,and now that they have said what they were told to say,she's not going to produce for them. The Clinton's are famous for using people and then throwing them under the bus. That's why even the DNC doesn't trust them or want her in office. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Maybe. Security was so lax all over with everything involving here EXCEPT for her PERSONAL SECURITY that it would probably be hard to pin down just one reason. Flat out,she doesn't give a damn about anyone but herself and her mini-me spawn. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
And not for the first time. Being likeable is so unnatural for her that she needs constant coaching and reminding to stay in role. Brings to mind the old-saying goes,"You can't polish a turd." Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
I wonder what they got in return? " I don't know what they got, money most likely. What they should get is a 2hour long "Blanket Party", then force them to resign from office, effective immediately. It is past time to start playing hardball with these assholes! Si vis pacem, para bellum Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.
Here is how ABC spun it, pretty much how I expect all of the MSM Mockingbird propaganda outlets to spin it. Benghazi Committee Gives Hillary Clinton Presidential Platform The “get Hillary” committee did not get Hillary. The House Benghazi committee -- dubbed a “get Hillary” effort by Democrats who opposed its creation -- brought out precious little new information and no major political missteps by the former secretary of state, who happens to be running for president. Under sharp and lengthy cross-examination for perhaps the biggest foreign-policy debacle of her time in office, Hillary Clinton was somber and substantive. During the political fireworks, Clinton was watching the show, with loyal Democrats matching their Republican colleagues’ volume, and Clinton staying out. The highly anticipated all-day-cable affair was the culmination of 17 months of committee work, plus decades worth of GOP-led investigations into all things Clinton. Confronted with this unprecedented spectacle, candidate Clinton chose almost entirely not to engage. “I imagine I’ve thought more about what happened than all of you put together,” Clinton told committee members. “I’ve lost more sleep than all of you put together.” Clinton can sleep easier as she rides a campaign hot streak. A heralded debate performance brought movement in the polls. Then came Wednesday’s announcement -- timed to come before the Benghazi testimony -- by Vice President Joe Biden, opting out of a 2016 run. The comparative anticlimax of Clinton’s performance on Capitol Hill could assuage nervous Democrats about her strength as a candidate. She remains the overwhelming frontrunner for the Democratic nomination, particularly after Biden’s decision. I keep telling you guys Hillary will not be prosecuted for her part in the Benghazi incident - she will not be prosecuted for her email violations. TPTB want her to be the next President. It will be Hillary vs Jeb in 2016. In a Cop Culture, the Bill of Rights Doesn’t Amount to Much Well - here's an interesting tidbit of information. After 11 hours, questioning of Hillary Clinton comes to an end The seats in the House hearing room are all taken, and dozens of photographers are on hand as Hillary Rodham Clinton testifies about the deadly attacks against Americans in Benghazi, Libya, in 2012. But the cameras didn't show the former secretary of state raising her right hand and swearing to tell the truth. A spokesman for the House Benghazi committee says the chairman — Republican Rep. Trey Gowdy of South Carolina — offered to conduct a private swearing-in — before the hearing began — out of respect for Clinton. Kinda like Bush and Cheney before the 9/11 Commission when they they testified in secret, off the record, not under oath and behind closed doors. In a Cop Culture, the Bill of Rights Doesn’t Amount to Much A spokesman for the House Benghazi committee says the chairman — Republican Rep. Trey Gowdy of South Carolina — offered to conduct a private swearing-in — before the hearing began — out of respect for Clinton. Kinda like Bush and Cheney before the 9/11 Commission when they they testified in secret, off the record, not under oath and behind closed doors. Amazing,ain't it? Unlike Mr Bubba,Mrs Bubba won't have to worry about being convicted of lying under oath because there will be no evidence she ever swore an oath to tell the truth. The only shocking thing is the realization that so many people who consider themselves to be conservatives still blindly vote for any fool with a R behind his name. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
You know I thought about that too. But what does one do? If you don't try to fight the other side just rams down everything under the sun. If you do fight your own side tries to block you. Its really a damned if you do and more damned if you don't.
You only vote for people you actually want to see holding public office. If you vote for the lesser of two evils you are still purposely voting for evil,so WTH would you want to do that and be part of the problem instead of part of the solution? Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Im finding that harder and harder to do. If not possible. You know even when they say they will they don't do what they claim or have done in the past once they get on the national stage. Really it just kinda sucks. Im down to will you just stop the flow of government. Truthfully I just have zero hope for America anymore.
There are some excerpts from the sworn testimony that could make for interesting 30-second political ads for the general election. CLINTON: For everyone, or for Benghazi? POMPEO: I'm sorry, yes, ma'am, related to Benghazi in Libya. Do you know how many there were? CLINTON: No, I do not know. POMPEO: Ma'am, there were just over a 100-plus. Second quarter, do you know how many there were? CLINTON: No, I do not. POMPEO: Ma'am, there were 172-ish. Might have been 171 or 173. That's -- how many were there in July and August and then in that week and few days before the attacks, do you know? CLINTON: There were a number of them, I know that. POMPEO: Yes, ma'am, 83 by our count. That's over 600 requests. You've testified here this morning that you had none of those reach your desk; is that correct also? CLINTON: That's correct. - - - - - - - - - - You just gave a long answer, Madam Secretary, to Ms. Sanchez about what you heard that night, what you're doing. But nowhere in there did you mention a video. You didn't mention a video because there was never a video-inspired protest in Benghazi. There was in Cairo but not in Benghazi. Victoria Nuland, your spokesperson at the State Department, hours after the attacks said this, "Benghazi has been attacked by militants. In Cairo, police have removed demonstrators." Benghazi, you got weapons and explosions. Cairo, you got spray paint and rocks. One hour before the attack in Benghazi, Chris Stevens walks a diplomat to the front gate. The ambassador didn't report a demonstration. He didn't report it because it never happened. An eyewitness in the command center that night on the ground said no protest, no demonstration; two intelligence reports that day, no protest, no demonstration. The attack starts at 3:42 Eastern time, ends at approximately 11:40 pm that night. At 4:06, an ops alert goes out across the State Department. It says this, "Mission under attack, armed men, shots fired, explosions heard." No mention of video, no mention of a protest, no mention of a demonstration. But the best evidence is Greg Hicks, the number two guy in Libya, the guy who worked side by side with Ambassador Stevens. He was asked, if there had been a protest, would the ambassador have reported it? Mr. Hicks's response, "Absolutely." For there to have been a demonstration on Chris Stevens' front door and him not to have reported it is unbelievable, Mr. Hicks. He said, secondly, if it had been reported, he would have been out the back door within minutes and there was a back gate. Everything points to a terrorist attack. We just heard from Mr. Pompeo about the long history of terrorist incidents, terrorist violence in the country. And yet five days later Susan Rice goes on five TV shows and she says this, "Benghazi was a spontaneous reaction as a consequence of a video," a statement we all know is false. But don't take my word for it. Here's what others have said. "Rice was off the reservation," off the reservation on five networks, White House worried about the politics. Republicans didn't make those statements. They were made by the people who worked for you in the Near Eastern Affairs bureau, the actual experts on Libya in the State Department. So if there's no evidence for a video-inspired protest, then where did the false narrative start? It started with you, Madam Secretary. At 10:08, on the night of the attack, you released this statement, "Some have sought to justify the vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet." At 10:08, with no evidence, at 10:08, before the attack is over, at 10:08, when Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty are still on the roof of the annex, fighting for their lives, the official statement of the State Department blames a video. Why? CLINTON: During the day on September 11th, as you did mention, Congressman, there was a very large protest against our embassy in Cairo. Protesters breached the walls. They tore down the American flag. And it was of grave concern to us because the inflammatory video had been shown on Egyptian television, which has a broader reach than just inside Egypt. And if you look at what I said, I referred to the video that night in a very specific way. I said, some have sought to justify the attack because of the video. I used those words deliberately, not to ascribe a motive to every attacker but as a warning to those across the region that there was no justification for further attacks. And, in fact, during the course of that week, we had many attacks that were all about the video. We had people breaching the walls of our embassies in Tunis, in Khartoum; we had people, thankfully not Americans, dying at protests. But that's what was going on, Congressman. JORDAN: Secretary Clinton, I appreciate most of those attacks were after the attack on the facility in Benghazi. You mentioned Cairo. It was interesting what else Ms. Nuland said that day. She said, "If pressed by the press, if there's a connection between Cairo and Benghazi," she said this, "there's no connection between the two." So here's what troubles me. Your experts knew the truth. Your spokesperson knew the truth. Greg Hicks knew the truth. But what troubles me more is I think you knew the truth. I want to show you a few things here. You're looking at an e- mail you sent to your family. Here's what you said at 11:00 that night, approximately one hour after you told the American people it was a video, you say to your family, "Two officers were killed today in Benghazi by an Al Qaeda- like group." You tell -- you tell the American people one thing, you tell your family an entirely different story. Also on the night of the attack, you had a call with the president of Libya. Here's what you said to him. "Ansar al-Sharia is claiming responsibility." It's interesting; Mr. Khattala, one of the guys arrested in charge actually belonged to that group. And finally, most significantly, the next day, within 24 hours, you had a conversation with the Egyptian prime minister. You told him this, "We know the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack, not a protest." Let me read that one more time. "We know," not we think, not it might be, "we know the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack, not a protest." State Department experts knew the truth. You knew the truth. But that's not what the American people got. And again, the American people want to know why. - - - - - - - - - - We will ignore for a second whether or not Sidney Blumenthal is outside the bubble, but I do want to ask you about a couple of those other comments, because what you left out was that he was an old friend who knew absolutely nothing about Libya, was critical of President Obama and others that you work with, loved to send you political and image advice, had business interests in Libya, which he not only alerted you to, but solicited your help for. And you often forwarded his e-mails, but usually only after you redacted out any identifier, so nobody knew where the information was coming from. What does the word unsolicited mean to you? CLINTON: It means that I did not ask him to send me the information that he sent me, and as I have previously stated, some of it I found interesting, some of it I do not. Some of it I forwarded, some of it I do not. I did not know anything about any business interest. I thought that, just as I said previously, newspaper articles, journalists, of which he is one -- a former journalist -- had some interesting insights. And so, you know, we took them on board and evaluated them, and some were helpful and others were not. GOWDY: We're going to get to all the points you just made, but I want to start with your -- your public comment that these e-mails were unsolicited. You wrote to him, Another keeper, 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? Got it, we'll follow up tomorrow. Anything else to convey? Now, that one is interesting because that was the very e-mail where Mr. Blumenthal was asking you to intervene on behalf of a business deal that he was pursuing in Libya. What did you mean by What are you hearing now? CLINTON: I have no idea, Congressman. They started out unsolicited and, as I said, some were of interest. I passed them on, and some were not. And so he continued to provide me information that was made available to him. GOWDY: I -- I don't want to parse words and -- and I don't want to be hypertechnical, because it's not a huge point, but it is an important point. You didn't say they started off unsolicited. You said they were -- you said they were unsolicited. CLINTON: Well, they were unsolicited. But obviously, I did respond to some of them. GOWDY: Well, anything else... CLINTON: ... And I'm sure that encouraged him. GOWDY: ... Anything else to convey? What are you hearing now? I'm going to Paris tomorrow night, will meet with TNC (ph) leaders, so this and additional info useful. Still don't have electricity or BlackBerry coverage post-Iran, so I've had to resort to my new iPad. Let me know if you received this. We'll talk about the new iPad in a little bit. Here's another one. This report is in part a response to your questions. That's an e-mail from him to you. This is -- this report is, in part, a response to your questions. There will be further information in the next day. If you're the one asking him for information, how does that square with the definition of unsolicited? CLINTON: I said it began that way, Mr. Chairman, and I will add that both Chris Stevens and Gene Cretz (ph) found some of the information interesting -- far more than I could, because they knew some of the characters who were being mentioned, and they were the ones -- the kind of persons with the expertise -- that I asked to evaluate to see whether there was any useful information. - - - - - - - - - - And this is -- this is informative. "Should we pass this on," and in parentheticals, "unidentified to the White House?" If you were gonna pass something on to the White House, why would you take off the identifiers? CLINTON: Because it was important to evaluate the information, and from a lot of intelligence that I have certainly reviewed over the years, you often don't have the source of the intelligence. You look at the intelligence, and you try to determine whether or not it is credible. Whether it can be followed up on. GOWDY: Well, I'm gonna accept the fact that you and I come from different backgrounds, because I can tell you that an unsourced comment could never be uttered in any courtroom. You have to have the... CLINTON: But we're not talking about courtrooms, Mr. chairman. We're talking about intelligence. GOWDY: No, we're talking about credibility and the ability to assess who a source is, and whether or not that source has ever been to Libya, knows anything about Libya, or has business interests in Libya -- all of which would be important if you were going to determine the credibility, which I think is why you probably took his information off of what you sent to the White House. But here's another possible explanation. It may give us a sense of why, maybe the White House didn't want you to hire him in the first place. In one e-mail he wrote this about the president's Secretary of Defense: "I infer gate (ph) problem as losing an internal debate. Tyler..." And by the way, Tyler Drumheller (ph), that's who actually authored the cables that you got from Mr. Blumenthal. "... Tyler knows him well and says he's a mean, vicious, little..." I'm not gonna say the word, but he did. This is an e-mail from Blumenthal to you about the president' Security of Defense. And here's another Blumenthal e-mail to you about the president's national security adviser. "Frankly, Tom Donelan's (ph) babbling rhetoric about narratives on a phone briefing of reporters on March the 10th has inspired derision among foreign -- serious foreign policy analysts both here and abroad." And here's another from, what you say is your old friend Sidney Blumenthal. This is a quote from him. "I would say Obama..." -- and by the way, he left the president part out. "I would say Obama appears to be intent on seizing defeat from the jaws of victory. He and his political cronies in the White House and Chicago are, to say the least, unenthusiastic about regime change in Libya. Obama's lukewarm and self-contradicting statements have produced what is, at least for the moment, operational paralysis." GOWDY: I think, that may give us a better understanding of why the White House may have told you, you cannot hire him. Blumenthal could not get hired by our government, didn't pass any background check at all, had no role with our government, had never been to Libya, had no expertise in Libya, was critical of the president and others that you worked with, shared polling data with you on the intervention in Libya, gave you political advice on how to take credit for Libya, all the while working for The Clinton Foundation and some pseudo news entities. And Madam Secretary, he had unfettered access to you. And he used that access, at least on one occasion, to ask you to intervene on behalf of a business venture. Do you recall that? CLINTON: You know, Mr. Chairman, if you don't have any friends who say unkind things privately I congratulate you. But from my perspective... (CROSSTALK) GOWDY: I'd like to think I'd correct them. CLINTON: ... I don't know what this line of questioning does to help us get to the bottom of the deaths of four Americans. (CROSSTALK) GOWDY: I'll be happy to help you understand that, madam secretary. CLINTON: But I want to reiterate what I said to Congresswoman Sanchez. These were originally unsolicited. You've just said that perhaps the main, if not the exclusive author, was a former intelligence agent for our country, who rose to the highest levels of the CIA and who was given credit for being one of the very few who pointed out that the intelligence used by the Bush administration to go to war in Iraq was wrong. So I think that, you know, the sharing of information from an old friend that I did not take at face value, that I sent on to those who were experts, is something that, you know, makes sense. But it was certainly not in any way the primary source of or the predominant understanding that we had of what was going on in Libya and what we needed to be doing. GOWDY: Well, Madam Secretary, I'm out of time and we'll pick this back up the next round but I'll go ahead and let you know ahead of time why it's relevant. It's relevant because our ambassador was asked to read and respond to Sidney Blumenthal's drivel. It was sent to him to read and react to, in some instances on the very same day he was asking for security. So I think it is eminently fair to ask why Sidney Blumenthal had unfettered access to you, Madam Secretary, with whatever he wanted to talk about. And there's not a single solitary e-mail to or from you to or from Ambassador Stevens. I think that that is fair and we'll take that up. - - - - - - - - - - I'm going to follow up on what the congresswoman from Illinois is discussing, which is facility -- and I appreciate the laundry list that you just listed with respect to the security improvements or whatever happened with respect to Benghazi. But I have to ask you if you're familiar with the fact that in the wake of the 1998 bombing attacks in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam, Congress passed something referred to as SECCA -- the Secure Embassy Construction and Counterterrorism Act, which requires the secretary of state to issue a waiver if, under two conditions, if U.S. government personnel work in separate facilities; or if U.S. overseas facilities do not meet the security setback distances specified by the Bureau of Diplomatic Security. The law specifies that only the secretary of state may sign these waivers and that requirement is not to be delegated. Was a waiver issued for the temporary mission in Benghazi and the CIA annex after the temporary mission compound was authorized through December of 2012? And did you sign that waiver, Madam Secretary? CLINTON: I think that the CIA annex, I had no responsibility for. So I cannot speak to what the decisions were with respect to the CIA annex. That is something that I know other committees have... BROOKS: But you acknowledge you were responsible for the temporary mission compound? CLINTON: Yes, of course. But you put them together and I just wanted to clarify that I had no responsibility for the CIA annex, obviously. The compound in Benghazi was neither an embassy nor a consulate. Those are the only two facilities for which we would obtain a formal diplomatic notification. And those were the only kinds of facilities that we would have sought waivers for at the time because we were trying to, as has been testified to earlier, understand whether we were going to have a permanent mission or not. That means you have to survey available facilities, try to find a secure facility. And the standards that are set by the Interagency Overseas Security Policy Board are the goals we try to drive for. But it is -- it is very difficult, if not impossible, to do that in the immediate aftermath of a conflict situation. The temporary mission in Benghazi was set up to try to find out what was going on in the area; to work with the CIA where appropriate; and to make a decision as to whether there would be a permanent facility. So, we could not have met the goals under the Overseas Security Policy Board, nor would we have issued a waiver because we had to set up operations in order to make the assessments as to whether or not we would have a permanent mission; whether that mission would remain open. And we made extensive and constant improvements to the physical security, some of which I've mentioned before. BROOKS: Madam Secretary, thank you. So it is obvious that a waiver was not signed and you've given a defense as to why a waiver was not signed. And it was temporary because it was made up. It was something different. The compound was -- had never become official. And so therefore, you did not sign a waiver, which when most of our people are stationed in such dangerous places, let me get into that with respect to the dangerous places. We know that Libya, you've testified before, was incapable of providing host nation support. And that involves protecting our diplomats and other U.S. government officials who travel there. So if the Libyan people didn't have a government capable of providing security, and we didn't have U.S. military in Libya, then we have two options. We either leave when it gets too dangerous, or the State Department makes sure that they provide that protection. And I want to just chat with you a little bit about the fact that when Ambassador Stevens returned there in late May, 2012 after being named the ambassador. Less than four months later, he was killed. But the number of violent attacks that occurred during that summer are off the charts. They're against westerners. I'd like you to refer to tab six. It is a 51-page document prepared by your head security guy in Libya, for security incidents -- serious security incidents between June 2011 and July 2012; 51 pages long, 235 significant security incidents; 235 attacks in one year. In Benghazi, there were 77 serious attacks in one year; 64 in 2012. Now, let me just tell you, as I flip through this, and I'm not talking Benghazi. As I showed earlier, it is a large city, about the size of D.C. or Boston. I'm talking about violent attacks like everyday robberies, burglaries, holdups. I'm talking about assassination attempts and assassinations, bombings, kidnappings, attacks on the Red Cross. The Red Cross gave up and pulled out -- the people who always go in when disaster strikes, they pulled out. That doesn't include 20 other major incidents -- bombings on police departments, the courts. Think about this. If you're in the city of Washington, D.C. or Boston, and we're now over in Benghazi, and all of these types of bombings are happening and these security incidents are happening. There are hundreds more actually I could talk with you about, but frankly I don't have time. I hope I've painted the picture because I'm baffled. You sent Chris Stevens to Libya and to Benghazi. And granted, he never raised the flag and said, "I want out." And granted, he never said, "Shut down Benghazi." And I understand and appreciate that you deferred to him, but you also, Madam Secretary -- we have no record of you ever talking to him, that -- you never talked to him personally after May of 2012 when you swore him in as our ambassador. Am I wrong? Did you ever talk to Ambassador Stevens when all of this was going on in the hotbed of Libya? CLINTON: Well... BROOKS: That is a yes or no question, Madam Secretary. I'm sorry. Did you ever personally speak to Ambassador Stevens after -- we don't know the answer. Did you ever personally speak to him after you swore him in in May? CLINTON: ...I believe... BROOKS: Yes or no, please. CLINTON: ...yes, I believe I did. But I... BROOKS: And when was that? CLINTON: ...I -- I don't recall. And I want to clarify for the record that this document is about all of Libya, not just Benghazi. BROOKS: Absolutely (ph). CLINTON: I don't want anybody to be... BROOKS: No, 77 are about Benghazi. CLINTON: ...misled, and -- you know, Congresswoman, look. I appreciate -- and -- and I really do -- the -- the passion and the intensity of your feelings about this. We have diplomatic facilities in war zones. We have ambassadors that we send to places that have been bombed and attacked all the time. BROOKS: And you're their boss. CLINTON: I -- you're right. BROOKS: Is that correct? CLINTON: You're right, I am. And we... BROOKS: And you're their leader. Is that correct? And is there -- are there ever situations where you call them, where you bring them in, where you are personally caring and concerned, and are letting them know that? Are -- are there situations where you recall -- and I'd like to know what the conversation was with Ambassador Stevens, and what month it was, with Ambassador Stevens. Because there are no call logs with him. There's nothing from the ops center with him that we have found. We have no record that you had any conversations with the ambassador after you swore him in and before he died, and you were his boss. CLINTON: I was the boss of ambassadors in 270 countries. I was the boss of ambassadors in places like Afghanistan, where, shortly before I visited one time, the embassy had been under brutal assault by the Taliban for hours. I am very well aware of the dangers that are faced by our diplomats and our development professionals. There was never a recommendation from Chris Stevens or anyone else to close Benghazi. Now, sitting here in the comfort of this large, beautiful hearing room, it's easy to say, "well, there should have been. Somebody should have stood up and said, do that." nc - 270 countries? - - - - - - - - - - I want to talk about a few things. Do you have a skiff (ph) in your home? CLINTON: Yes, I did. ROBY: OK. And who else was at your home? Were you alone? CLINTON: I was alone, yes. ROBY: The whole night? CLINTON: Yes, the whole night. (LAUGHTER) ROBY: I don't know why that's funny. I mean, did you have any in-person briefings? I don't find it funny at all. CLINTON: I'm sorry -- a little note of levity at 7:15, noted for the record. ROBY: Well, I mean, the reason I say it's not funny is because it well into the night when our folks on the ground were still in danger. So I don't think it's funny to ask you if you were alone the whole night. CLINTON: Well, Congresswoman, you asked if I had a skiff. I had secure phones. I had other equipment that kept me in touch with the State Department at all times. I did not sleep all night. I was very much focused on what we were doing. ROBY: Who was at your office when you left? Was Cheryl Mills, your chief of staff, still at the office when you left? CLINTON: I don't remember. I know that a lot of my staff were there. ROBY: I'm going to go through and name them. We'll see if you remember. Jake Sullivan, was he still there? CLINTON: When -- yes, they were all there when I left. They were all there. ROBY: OK. Victoria Nuland was there when you left? CLINTON: When I -- when I left, everyone was there. ROBY: Philip Ranas (ph) was there? CLINTON: I can -- all I -- I can give you a blanket answer. When I left... ROBY: No, I'm going to ask specifics. Was Patrick Kennedy there? CLINTON: I'm sure he was. ROBY: Was Philip Ranas (ph) there? CLINTON: I don't know. I don't know whether he was. ROBY: How about Stephen Mull? CLINTON: I'm sure that the core team at the State Department was still there. ROBY: Beth Jones? CLINTON: I'm sure she was. ROBY: And Bill Burns and Thomas Nides? CLINTON: I have no specific recollection of any of the names you've given me, because when I left, I knew I would stay in touch and I do not know how long anybody else stayed at the State Department. - - - - - - - - - - Those 55,000 pages, there were 62,00 e-mails -- total e-mails, on your system. You have stated that you used a multi-step process to determine which ones were private, which ones were public, which ones belonged to you and your family, which ones belonged to the taxpayer. Who oversaw this multi-step process in making that determination which ones we might get and which ones that were personal? CLINTON: That was overseen by my attorneys and they conducted a rigorous review of my e-mails and... JORDAN: These are the folks sitting behind you there, Mr. Kendall, Ms. Mills... CLINTON: Yes, that's right. JORDAN: ...Ms. Danielsen (ph)? All right. And you said rigorous. What does that mean? CLINTON: It means that they were asked to provide anything that could be possibly construed as work related. In fact, in my opinion -- and that's been confirmed by both the State Department... JORDAN: But I'm asking how -- I'm asking how it was done. Was -- did someone physically look at the 62,000 e-mails, or did you use search terms, date parameters? I want to know the specifics. CLINTON: They did all of that, and I did not look over their shoulders, because I thought it would be appropriate for them to conduct that search, and they did. JORDAN: Will you provide this committee -- or can you answer today, what were the search terms? CLINTON: The search terms were everything you could imagine that might be related to anything, but they also went through every single e-mail. JORDAN: That's not answering the question. Search terms means "terms". What terms did you use... CLINTON: I did -- I did not... JORDAN: And what were the date parameters? What -- what date did you start, what was the end date, and the e-mails in between that we're going to look at? CLINTON: Well, Congressman, I asked my attorneys to oversee the process. I did not look over their shoulder. I did not dictate how they would do it. I did not ask what they were doing and how they made their determinations (ph). JORDAN: So you don't know? You don't know what terms they used to determine which ones were your e-mails and which ones the State Department got, and therefore we might get? CLINTON: You know, The State Department had between 90 and 95 percent of all the ones that were work related. They were already on the system. In fact, this committee got e-mails... - - - - - - - - - - JORDAN: Just one? CLINTON: ...that was already being used by my husband's team. An existing system in our home that I used, and then later, again, my husband's office decided that they wanted to change their arrangements, and that's when they contracted with the company in Colorado. JORDAN: And so there's only one server? Is that what you're telling me? And it's the one server that the FBI has? CLINTON: The FBI has the server that was used during the tenure of my State Department service. JORDAN: OK. In your statement, you said, "which is protected by the Secret Service." Why did you mention the Secret Service? CLINTON: Well, because... JORDAN: And -- here's what -- could a Secret Service agent standing at the back door of your house protect someone in Russia or China from hacking into your system? Why did you mention the Secret Service agent? CLINTON: Out of just an abundance of being transparent. - - - - - - - - - - POMPEO: And how do you know that? CLINTON: We know it through our own investigation about what documents were at Benghazi, and there were no classified materials, to the best of our information. POMPEO: Yes, ma'am. Do you know if there was sensitive information? CLINTON: I suppose it depends on what one thinks of as sensitive information. There was information there and some of it was burnt, either wholly or partially. Some of it was looted. And some of it was recovered eventually. POMPEO: Madam Secretary, do you know where that material that was looted went? Do you know into whose hands it fell? And do you know the nature and contents of that material? You seem very confident it wasn't classified. I don't share your confidence. But nonetheless, do you know where that material went? CLINTON: I think that it -- it is very difficult to know where it ended up. But I want to just reiterate the point that I made. This was not a facility that had the capacity to handle classified material. And there was, to the best of our information, Congressman, no classified material at the Benghazi facility. - - - - - - - - - - - CLINTON: Ninety to 95 percent of my work related emails were in the State's system, if they wanted to see them, they would certainly have been able to do so. GOWDY: You know what, that is maybe the tenth time you have cited that figure today. CLINTON: It is. GOWDY: And I have not heard anyone other than you ever cite that figure. Who told you that 90 to 95 percent of your emails were in the State Department system? Who told you that? CLINTON: We learned that from the State Department and their analysis of the emails that were already on the system. We were trying to help them close some gaps that they had. But they already... GOWDY: Can you provide me with a name? Because when I asked the State Department about 10 days ago what is the source of that figure, they shrugged their shoulders. CLINTON: Well, you can look for the state.gov addresses and they certainly pop up. And it's where... GOWDY: Right. In the inspector general report, Madam Secretary, the inspector general report, which you can't argue by perfect analogy, but you can certainly extrapolate, the inspector general report found that less than 1 percent, less than 1 percent of State Department emails, record emails were captured. So they give a number of less than 1 percent and you give a number of 90 percent. CLINTON: Well, I don't know what you are referring to. I can only speak about my emails, my work related emails and... GOWDY: Well, let's talk about your work related emails. We asked for them last year and the State Department gave us eight. If they had 90 percent of yours, why did we only get eight? CLINTON: Well, I don't know initially what you asked for, but I know that they tried to be responsive. Ninety to 95 percent of them were on state.gov. I understand that the committee broadened the scope of their request. And I think that in response, the State Department has been trying to provide what you have requested. In the meantime, they're going through the process of making all of my emails public. GOWDY: You think our first request, there were only eight emails responsive to our first request? CLINTON: I can't speak to it. I believe your first request was for Benghazi. And I believe that the State Department did a diligent search. Then I believe you expanded it to Libya and weapons and maybe a few other terms. And I believe they conducted a diligent... GOWDY: Well, our jurisdiction hasn't grown, Madam Secretary. Our jurisdiction is the same thing it was.
Excellent report Tom. Wish the media could do the same job.
"For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly."---Romans 5:6
Sadly,you are no alone. The worse part is nobody took it from us. We never lost a war,and no foreign power has dominated us since we ran the British and the Spanish away. We did this to ourselves. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
CLINTON: That's correct. Yew jist a chauvinistic anti-whymen Republican pig dat be picking on Mrs Bubba cause she's jist a gurl! Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
My bad. Hillary is great. As she said, she "was the boss of ambassadors in 270 countries." Not one congress critter questioned that number. I haven't seen a media source question it either. That had to include over 70 imaginary countries.
Don't forget that the guy she works for thinks there are 59 states. This ain't exactly a brain trust we have running things in DC. Just imagine the CF it's going to be when they add millions more non-English speaking 3rd worlders. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Hillary is declared the winner based on style and not exploding into bitch mode and exclaiming "What difference does it make?" On substance, Hillary was shown to have dissembled repeatedly. Come the general election, the GOP can make some fine 30-second spots. The ARB never interviewed secretary Clinton. The ARB never reviewed her e-mails. And Secretary Clinton's top adviser was allowed to review and suggest changes to the ARB before the public ever saw it. There's no transcript of ARB interviews. So, it's impossible to mow whether all relevant questions were asked and answered. Because there's no transcript, it is also impossible to cite the ARB interviews with any particularity at all. That is not independent. That is not accountability. That is not a serious investigation. You will hear there were previous congressional investigations into Benghazi. And that is true. It should make you wonder why those investigations failed to interview so many witnesses and access so many documents. If those previous congressional investigations were really serious and thorough, how did they miss Ambassador Stevens' e-mails? If those previous investigations were serious and thorough, how did they miss Secretary Clinton's e-mails? If those congressional investigations really were serious and thorough, why did they fail to interview dozens of key State Department witnesses, including agents on the ground who experienced the attacks firsthand? If none of the 600+ security reached the desk of Hillary Clinton, who was the official that denied the 600 requests? The Benghazi Committee is not done interviewing witnesses. Undersecretary of State Patrick Kennedy participated in the decisions to deny security requests from Benghazi. He also participated in selecting the members of the ARB (Accountability Review Board). You will not find Patrick Kennedy's name mentioned in the ARB Report. At page 4 of the ARB, it states, "Embassy Tripoli did not demonstrate strong and sustained advocacy with Washington for increased security for Special Mission Benghazi." Well, 600 security requests allegedly never made it through to Secretary Clinton, so she was not the one responsible for the denials. 600 requests seems like fairly strong advocacy. At page 7 of the ARB, it states, "The Board found that certain senior State Department officials within two bureaus demonstrated a lack of proactive leadership and management ability in their responses to security concerns posed by Special Mission Benghazi, given the deteriorating threat environment and the lack of reliable host government protection. However, the Board did not find reasonable cause to determine that any individual U.S. government employee breached his or her duty." At page 12 of the ARB, it states, "The Board recognizes that poor performance does not ordinarily constitute a breach of duty that would serve as a basis for disciplinary action but is instead addressed through the performance management system. However, the Board is of the view that findings of unsatisfactory leadership performance by senior officials in relation to the security incident under review should be a potential basis for discipline recommendations by future ARBs, and would recommend a revision of Department regulations or amendment to the relevant statute to this end." Four employees were placed on administrative leave as a result of the ARB. Eric Boswell, former Asst. Secretary for Diplomatic Security. Scott Bultrowicz, former Director of the Diplomatic Security Service and Boswell's deputy. Raymond Maxwell, Deputy Asst. Secretary for Maghreb Affairs. All were later reassigned and returned to work for the State Department. Deputy assistant is not a top of the heap position. Gowdy is aiming higher than that to find the highest level that was responsible for those denials. I believe he will be calling Patrick Kennedy (not of the royal Kennedy clan) in the near future.
And to think that she only had a little more than a year to rehearse,and to rehearse the Dims on the committee on what questions to ask! Yes,but the questions are "WILL they?",and how long will it take the Dims to release their prepared and already filmed with professional actors "Look at the Repugs,picking on a gurl!" tv commercials. Unfortunately,as dumb as our national politicians are,they are still smarter than the people that vote them into office. Undersecretary of State Patrick Kennedy participated in the decisions to deny security requests from Benghazi. He also participated in selecting the members of the ARB (Accountability Review Board). That boy is even dumb by Kennedy standards. He's not capable of reviewing a lunch menu,never mind anything even remotely complex. I predict that if he is called to testify that he will be reporting back into rehab again,and be "unavailable". One thing is an absolute certainty,and that is under no circumstances do the Dim handlers want that goober testifying before a committee they don't completely control. Deputy assistant is not a top of the heap position. Gowdy is aiming higher than that to find the highest level that was responsible for those denials. I believe he will be calling Patrick Kennedy (not of the royal Kennedy clan) in the near future. LET THE GAMES BEGIN! Poor Paddy. The cretin doesn't even understand his food and drink will be laced with enough downs to send him back into rehab,and his rehab docs will be under orders to "Keep 'em coming!". Not that he ever actually realizes anything more complex that "It's raining and I am getting wet!" when he's sober. "Dope" was named for people like him because it makes them appear to be complex enough to actually be influenced by drugs. "The Kennedy's! Almost smart enough to be Bush's!" should be the slogan on their family coat of arms. Don't laugh. It's marginally better than "Duhhhh!" Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
It is not that Patrick Kennedy which is why I noted at the end, "(not of the royal Kennedy clan)." He's a career State Dept guy and no relation to the New England royalty.
OOPS! Sorry,I didn't see that. He's a career State Dept guy and no relation to the New England royalty. Good for him! Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
For two days all I have heard from the media is how this is just an attack on Hillary by the Gop.
#2. To: sneakypete (#1)
#3. To: Justified (#0)
#4. To: sneakypete (#1)
#5. To: All (#4)
#6. To: redleghunter, sneakypete (#3)
#7. To: Justified (#0)
(Edited)
How the media protects Hillary
#8. To: Justified, redleghunter, sneakypete, rlk (#0)
(Edited)
How the media protects Hillary
#9. To: Justified (#4)
She had pictures or video on them! That or she paid them off?
#10. To: Justified (#6)
(Edited)
I read awhile back that it was Hilary's hacked emails that got our people murdered.
#11. To: rlk (#7)
(Edited)
Now she has hired acting coaches to make her appear more likeable and help her cover her tracks.
#12. To: sneakypete (#1)
" two prominent alleged Republicans told the press during interviews that this was a partisan attack to hurt her election effort.
#13. To: Justified (#0)
I listen to some of it and Gowdy reamed her ass! He proved she lied, a lot. The commettee had barely started getting info from the state department and this was not even close to being done!
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#14. To: sneakypete, Justified (#1)
It doesn't help that two prominent alleged Republicans told the press during interviews that this was a partisan attack to hurt her election effort.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#15. To: Deckard (#14)
But the cameras didn't show the former secretary of state raising her right hand and swearing to tell the truth.
#16. To: sneakypete (#15)
The only shocking thing is the realization that so many people who consider themselves to be conservatives still blindly vote for any fool with a R behind his name.
#17. To: Justified (#16)
But what does one do?
#18. To: sneakypete (#17)
If you vote for the lesser of two evils you are still purposely voting for evil,so WTH would you want to do that and be part of the problem instead of part of the solution?
#19. To: Justified (#0)
POMPEO: ... I want to do some math with you. Can I get the first chart, please? Do you know how many security requests there were in the first quarter of 2012?
JORDAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
GOWDY: When you were asked about Sidney Blumenthal you said he was an old friend who sent you unsolicited e-mails, which you passed in some instances because you wanted to hear from people outside what you called the bubble.
GOWDY: All right. I want to draw your attention to an e-mail about Libya from Mr. Blumenthal to you dated April 2011. It will be Exhibit 67.
BROOKS: Thank you, Madam Secretary.
ROBY: Secretary Clinton, I want to follow up on the questions about the night of the attack and decisions made then. You wrote in your book,"Hard Choices," that you were directing the State Department response the night of September 11th, 2012, but you also stated that you left your office on the night of the attack and went to your home in northwest Washington because you said you knew the next few days were going to be taxing and the department was going to be looking to you.
JORDAN: I appreciate -- let -- and let's get into that.
CLINTON: There was a -- there was a server...
CLINTON: Yes, we later became aware that documents had been removed, but there was no classified documents at Benghazi.
GOWDY: Madam Secretary, that actually was not my question. My question was, whether or not the previous congressional committees and ARB had access to your emails. That was of my question.
#20. To: tomder55 (#8)
#21. To: Justified (#18)
Truthfully I just have zero hope for America anymore.
#22. To: nolu chan (#19)
That's over 600 requests. You've testified here this morning that you had none of those reach your desk; is that correct also?
#23. To: sneakypete (#22)
Yew jist a chauvinistic anti-whymen Republican pig dat be picking on Mrs Bubba cause she's jist a gurl!
#24. To: nolu chan (#23)
My bad. Hillary is great. As she said, she "was the boss of ambassadors in 270 countries." Not one congress critter questioned that number. I haven't seen a media source question it either. That had to include over 70 imaginary countries.
#25. To: sneakypete (#24)
This ain't exactly a brain trust we have running things in DC.
[GOWDY] You will hear a lot today about the Accountability Review Board. Secretary Clinton has mentioned it more than 70 times in her previous testimony before Congress. But when you hear about the ARB, you should know the State Department leadership hand picked the members of the ARB.
Charlene Lamb, Deputy Asst. Secretary for International Programs.
#26. To: nolu chan (#25)
Hillary is declared the winner based on style and not exploding into bitch mode and exclaiming "What difference does it make?"
#27. To: sneakypete (#26)
That boy is even dumb by Kennedy standards.
#28. To: nolu chan (#27)
It is not that Patrick Kennedy which is why I noted at the end, "(not of the royal Kennedy clan)."
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]