Hillary’s email bombshell: Saudi’s financed the Benghazi attack

http://worldbeyondwar.org/hillarys-email-bombshell-saudis-financed-the-benghazi-attack/

https://seeker401.wordpress.com/2016/05/16/hillarys-email-bombshell-saudis-financed-the-benghazi-attack/
Bernie Sanders may have been chivalrous when he told a beleaguered Hillary Clinton, “The American people are sick and tired of hearing about your damn emails.” But when it comes to actually reading some of Clinton’s confidential exchanges, that’s another matter.
In December 2014, Hillary Rodham Clinton began providing the State Department with personal emails sent or received during her tenure as Secretary of State. The final batch was released on February 29, 2016. The entire collection is now posted on the State Department’s Public Reading Room and is searchable via this link.
But the collection is not complete. Clinton admits to having deleted 32,000 emails“deemed private.” Among the missing are a number of politically charged emails sent to Secretary Clinton by a trusted colleague named Sidney Blumenthal. Blumenthal’s emails were allegedly captured and copied by Marcel Lazar Lehel, an unemployed Romanian taxi driver better known as “Guccifer” and “Small Fume.” In April of this year, Lehel became an instant celebrity after he was identified as the cyber-savvy interloper who had hacked into Clinton’s official email account during her time as Secretary of State. (Lehel was recently awarded an all-expenses-paid trip from a Romanian prison to the US where he will spend his days in an American jail cell under 18-month extradition order.)
Guccifer’s sudden celebrity may seem a bit odd, given the fact that he initially released Clinton’s compromised communiqués some time ago—back in 2013, to be precise.
Before Guccifer became tabloid-fodder in the West, he had already popped a number of eyes by sharing his disclosures with the Russian media organization RT (“Hillary Clinton’s ‘hacked’ Benghazi emails: FULL RELEASE“) on March 20, 2013. (A second bundle of Guccifer’s Blumenthal-Clinton emails was released on March 22, 2013.)
Given the current frenzy over Guccifer and his revelations, it is remarkable that his headline-grabbing “leaks” went virtually unreported when he first twisted the spigot back in 2013. At the time, the mainstream media took little notice. The only “news outlets” to pick up on Guccifer’s cyber-pranks were a few conspiracy sites like The Smoking Gun and Cryptome. [Note: You may experience trouble trying to access the Cryptome website.]
The tranche of Clinton’s “damn emails” subsequently posted by RT included some pretty damning revelations. Perhaps none was more shocking than the disclosure that the deadly attack on the American consulate in Benghazi on September 11, 2012—which took the life of US ambassador John Christopher “Chris” Stevens—was secretly financed by powerful figures in Saudi Arabia.
This information was contained within the text of four messages Secretary Clinton received from Blumenthal. It should be noted that Blumenthal was not an employee of the US State Department. He was an employee of the Clinton Foundation, earning salary of $10,000 a month as a consultant providing memo-worthy Intel to Secretary Clinton. On the side, Blumenthal also was serving an entrepreneurial role inside a Libyan company called Osprey that was hoping to reap lucrative medical and military contracts under the new post-Qadaffi government. (Since such business deals could require State Department approval, Hillary Clinton might be asked someday whether this relationship with Blumenthal posed a “conflict of interest.”)
One confidential memo dispatched to Clinton on February 16, 2013 bore the warning: “The following information comes from extremely sensitive sources and it should be handled with care.” In this memo, Blumenthal included a lengthy report from an “individual with sensitive access” who, “speaking on condition of absolute secrecy” described the role of the Mokhtar Belmokhtar (a former Al-Qaeda fighter from Algeria who became the leader of the Al-Murabitoun militia) in a January 16, 2013 hostage-taking incident at an Algerian gas facility. (A four-day battle eventually freed 685 Algerian workers and 107 foreigners and left 39 foreign hostages dead).
Blumenthal’s source then turned to the attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi which was mounted by Ansar al Sharia, another radical militia. “This individual adds that this information provided by the French [intelligence] service indicates that the funding for both attacks originated with wealthy Sunni Islamists in Saudi Arabia. During July and August 2012, these financiers provided funds to Al Qaeda in the Islamic Mahgreb (AQIM) contacts in southern Europe, who in turn passed the money onto AQIM operatives in Mauritania. The money was used to recruit operatives and purchase ammunition and supplies.”
“In a separate conversation,” Blumenthal’s memo continues, “Algerian DGSE [the state intelligence agency] officers note in private that Libyan intelligence officers tell them that the Benghazi attacks were funded by these financiers in Saudi Arabia.”
Alleged Saudi funding of the attack in Benghazi is particularly troubling in light of the mounting suspicions that the 28 censored pages of Washington’s official 911 report spell out the role that powerful officials in Saudi Arabia played in supporting the hijackers who brought down the World Trade Center towers in 2011. It is disturbing to discover that Hillary Clinton was informed of Saudi involvement in the death of Ambassador Stevens in 2013 and has opted to remain silent.
The Blumenthal memos make many references to the complex role of foreign intelligence—most prominently the CIA and Britain’s Secret Intelligence Service (SIS)—both during Qaddafi’s reign and after the unraveling of Libya’s government.
One of Blumenthal’s sources refers to the “heightened public interest in the liaison relationships conducted by the CIA and the SIS with Qaddafi’s intelligence and security services” and mentions the international organization Human Rights Watch (HRW) and its “efforts to tie Western governments to human rights violations committed under Qaddafi.” According to one of Blumenthal’s sources, Mohammed Yousef el-Magariaf, a Libyan politician who served as the president of the General National Congress and “interim head-of-state,” was concerned that his “enemies are working to take advantage of his suspected links to the CIA” and predicted “this situation will only grow more complex as Qaddafi’s son, Saif al Islam Qaddafi and al Senousi are brought before Libyan courts” since It was believed “both men will be linked to Western intelligence during their trials.”
Compounding the problem, Blumenthal warned Clinton, were “messages to Libya from the CIA and SIS [that] were found among the Tripoli Documents published by HRW indicating that the United States and Britain were eager to help Libya capture several senior LIFG [Libyan Islamic Fighting Group] figures.”

———-

emails keep circling HRC..will they eventually bring her down?
blumenthal..clan of berg?

Hillary Consolidates Wall Street Support as Republican Financiers Shift to Clinton

Posted on May 9, 2016 by WashingtonsBlog
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/05/hillary-consolidates-wall-street-support-republican-financiers-shift-clinton.html 

Submitted by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,

(Satire)Some will say that you are simply parasitic on those who labor at menial physical production—these are people who still subscribe to 18 Century notions of value production–and that you skim off profit without doing anything meaningful or of value. Those people are misguided: we know that if money never sleeps, that’s because you keep it awake! You have—if I may use a metaphor–injected money with caffeine, Adderal, crack, meth, with LSD so that it can dance the crazy dance and grow a crazy thousand psychedelic feet tall in a rainbow minute!   Money was a lazy b*tch, until you put it to work! And look how it works! Look how it grows! Materializes out of nowhere!
As you know, my husband tried very hard to change the culture of this misbegotten underclass, by kicking them off the government teat, by poisoning their milk with harsh, bitter regulation, and by disciplining them with the most arbitrary, racist, punitive, devastating criminal laws in US history, laws which Richard Nixon, the Southern strategists, the slave catchers, could only have dreamed of. He also passed NAFTA, which told them in no uncertain terms that they needed to discipline themselves as workers, and learn to be competitive in the global sweatshop, or face certain extinction. But they have not learned their lesson.

– From the post: Hillary Clinton’s Full Speech to Goldman Sachs (Satire)
As I wrote about in detail in last week’s post, Why Trump Winning the Republican Nomination is Good for American Democracy, the best thing about Donald Trump beating all of his controlled Republican rivals is that a Trump vs. Clinton general election will prove once and for all that there’s essentially no difference between the Republican and Democratic parties when it comes to the really big issues of our time.
In a typical election, both corrupt political parties diligently work to ensure that the American public has no real choice, and they are almost always successful. With the clueless citizenry being forced to choose between one corporatist puppet, banker bailout supporting, war mongering, civil liberties destroying sociopath or anothe, people generally end up voting based on wedge issues such a abortion or guns, and the road to serfdom marches onward. That’s how pretty much all elections during my lifetime have operated.
2016 presents a bit of a dilemma in this regard. While Donald Trump may end up falling perfectly in line as a good status quo stooge, he might not. It’s this risk that is leading many “Republicans” to support the neocon, Wall Street puppet Hillary Clinton. She is the sure thing.
You don’t have to be politically astute to understand what this proves. That that two party system is a joke, a sham, a diversion to keep the public fighting over wedge issues while “elite” criminals from both parties rape and pillage the American public. If that’s the only lesson we draw from 2016, that’s good enough.
The Wall Street Journal reports:

Hillary Clinton is consolidating her support among Wall Street donors and other businesses ahead of a general-election battle with Donald Trump, winning more campaign contributions from financial-services executives in the most recent fundraising period than all other candidates combined.
The Democratic front-runner has raised $4.2 million in total from Wall Street, $344,000 of which was contributed in March alone. According to a Wall Street Journal analysis of fundraising data provided by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, the former secretary of state received 53% of the donations from Wall Street in March, up from 32% last year and 33% in January through February, as the nominating contests began.
The analysis of campaign-finance reports shows that some Wall Street donors have shifted their financial support from Republican candidates who dropped out of the race, such as former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, to Mrs. Clinton in recent months.
Mr. Trump, by contrast, hasn’t garnered more than 1% of Wall Street contributions in any month through March.
In the 2012 presidential election, the financial-services sector donated more than any other industry, topping $90 million in total contributions to campaigns. Some three times as much of that Wall Street money went to Republican nominee Mitt Romney as to Mr. Obama.

Despite getting less financial sector money, we still saw how much of a Wall Street stooge Obama has been. We can only imagine what a Clinton presidency will look like.

Mrs. Clinton’s popularity on Wall Street could prove a liability with some liberal voters, as primary rival Bernie Sanders has attacked her for being too cozy with the financial industry. But winning back a sizable chunk of money that went to Mr. Romney four years ago would likely give Mrs. Clinton a big fundraising advantage in the general election. 
An analysis by the nonpartisan organization Crowdpac found that more than 500 donors, including many Wall Street executives, who gave more than $200 to a Republican who later dropped out, including Messrs. Bush and Rubio, have since given to Mrs. Clinton. More than one-third of the money that business interests have donated to presidential campaigns has gone to Mrs. Clinton’s coffers, the Journal’s analysis found.
“Business interests are generally not sold on the notion that Trump will be a more business-friendly candidate; there’s a lot about Trump they don’t know,” said Ed Rogers, a Republican lobbyist. “They know Hillary. And they know that she is not antibusiness.”

Indeed. Wall Street knows Hillary very, very well, which is why they paid her ridiculous sums for speeches previously, and why they are bankrolling her campaign presently.

Huffpost Says It's Time For Hillary Clinton to Concede to Bernie Sanders

 http://www.inquisitr.com/3051449/huffpost-says-its-time-for-hillary-clinton-to-concede-to-bernie-sanders/

May 1, 2016

HuffPost 

 

Says It’s Time For Hillary Clinton To Concede To Bernie Sanders

Diana Price

Since the beginning of the Democratic primary campaign, Bernie Sanders’ supporters have been complaining about national establishment media skewing their coverage in favor of Hillary Clinton, noting the connections between ownership of those major media outlets to Clinton campaign donations. Now, one national news site has not only acknowledged Sanders as a viable candidate, but has gone as far as to call for Hillary Clinton to concede the Democratic nomination to Bernie Sanders.
In an article by H. A. Goodman, HuffPost Politics calls for Clinton to drop out of the race, citing the criminal investigation by the FBI into Clinton’s email server as well as national polls showing that despite being behind in pledged delegates, Sanders has taken the lead in national polls for not only the Democratic party nomination, but fares far better against Donald Trump and Ted Cruz in a national campaign.

“With Bernie Sanders now slightly ahead of Clinton nationally in the latest Bloomberg poll, it’s time to reevaluate the meaning of pragmatism. Hillary Clinton might be ahead of Bernie Sanders in delegates, but Vermont’s Senator has a monopoly on political momentum. Sadly, his opponent has a monopoly on controversy, and will face FBI interviews in the near future.”

HuffPost also cited a Los Angeles Times article about how formal interviews are being arranged with Clinton’s closest advisers as well as Clinton herself, indicating the investigation is reaching its final stages. By final stages, they mean that a possible indictment for criminal charges may drop any time, and they want to make sure that readers understand that this is a criminal investigation, which Goodman repeated multiple times throughout the opinion piece.

“The Christian Science Monitor clearly states the nature of the FBI’s investigation, stating ‘The FBI is indeed conducting a criminal investigation into the possible mishandling of classified information on the private email server Clinton used for State Department communications.’ Yes, Hillary supporters, ‘The FBI is indeed conducting a criminal investigation.'”

Democratic presidential candidate and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton testifies before the House Select Committee on Benghazi October 22, 2015 on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC. [Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images]

Other publications making it clear that this investigation is not just about possible misconduct but about criminal charges, include The Washington Post. And, it isn’t just media outlets jumping on the bandwagon to let the public know the gravity of the charges pending against Clinton and that this is not just another far-fetched scandal courtesy of the Republican Party, like so many attacks on the Clintons in the past. Former U.S. attorney general Michael Mukasey wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal back in January, claiming the charges were justified. Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, the retired chief of the Defense Intelligence Agency, told CNN‘s Jake Tapper that it was time for Clinton to drop out of the race back in February, long before the current surge in support for Sanders.

“If it were me, I would have been out the door and probably in jail… This over-classification excuse is not an excuse. If it’s classified, it’s classified.”

HuffPost Politics didn’t mince words on what many Sanders’ supporters have claimed was the DNC’s decision to anoint Hillary Clinton the Democratic Party nominee long before the primaries even began, regardless of who ran against her or what skeletons might lurk in her proverbial closet. They also cited her extreme negative favorability rating and how she fares far worse head-to-head with Trump in polls than her rival Sanders.

“It’s time for Democrats to deal with reality, not just allegiance to a political icon, and rally around the only candidate not linked to an FBI investigation, and other controversies. With recent victories and future wins ahead, Bernie Sanders has all the political momentum heading towards Election Day. Most importantly, Bernie Sanders is the only leading candidate with positive favorability ratings in 2016… Democrats can’t run a winning presidential campaign with the slogan, ‘We’ll save you from Trump with a person who’s less despised.'”

Real Clear Politics polls show Bernie Sanders consistently maintains a double digit lead over Donald Trump, while Hillary Clinton hovers around single digits — and has even dropped to below Trump’s ratings back in February — yet publications like Rolling Stone continue to claim Clinton as the stronger candidate against Trump when all polls indicate the exact opposite. All of this is taking place before the GOP goes on the attack against Clinton should she win the nomination for the general election.
It’s fair to say neither Donald Trump nor Ted Cruz will say “enough about your d*** emails.” Or that they will give Clinton a pass on the many other reasons Hillary needs to step aside.

The author of the article also recorded a video on YouTube, spelling out why Clinton will likely be indicted and how the email scandal in itself disqualifies her from being president, citing the fact that there are 22 emails that still can’t be shown to the American public, which indicates that they are indeed classified, despite arguments from Clinton to the contrary. Goodman says Clinton’s claims that the emails weren’t classified while they were on her private server are false, and that whole issue is irrelevant “spin” that doesn’t change the fact that the email issue alone makes Clinton unfit to be the Democratic party nominee or president.

“So you either have overt criminal activity, or someone who’s just not smart enough to keep state secrets safe. Either way, you’re not fit to be president.”

The HuffPost Politics article says that the subsequent cover-up has been as damaging, if not more so, than the scandal itself, much like Watergate derailed Richard Nixon. Goodman asks when the Democratic Party establishment will finally “admit this fiasco is horrible for a general election?” and notes that if “federal prosecutors are interviewing your candidate for president, even Donald Trump has a good chance at the White House.”
Just in case you didn’t draw the conclusion that Clinton’s email scandal will be her downfall and it’s time for her to drop out, this sums up the political point that only HuffPost Politics seems willing to make among the establishment media.

Democratic presidential candidate, Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-VT) campaigns at Chicago State University. [Photo by John Gress/Getty Images]

“Bernie is by far the superior candidate, and already matches up better against GOP rivals; without the myriad of issues faced by Clinton. For the country, and especially the Democratic Party, Hillary Clinton should concede the nomination to Bernie Sanders.”

And HuffPost Politics did mention this is a criminal investigation. Just in case you didn’t catch it the seven times it’s pointed out in the article.
[Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images]

Huffpost Says It's Time For Hillary Clinton to Concede to Bernie Sanders

http://www.inquisitr.com/3051449/huffpost-says-its-time-for-hillary-clinton-to-concede-to-bernie-sanders/

Since the beginning of the Democratic primary campaign, Bernie Sanders’ supporters have been complaining about national establishment media skewing their coverage in favor of Hillary Clinton, noting the connections between ownership of those major media outlets to Clinton campaign donations. Now, one national news site has not only acknowledged Sanders as a viable candidate, but has gone as far as to call for Hillary Clinton to concede the Democratic nomination to Bernie Sanders.
In an article by H. A. Goodman, HuffPost Politics calls for Clinton to drop out of the race, citing the criminal investigation by the FBI into Clinton’s email server as well as national polls showing that despite being behind in pledged delegates, Sanders has taken the lead in national polls for not only the Democratic party nomination, but fares far better against Donald Trump and Ted Cruz in a national campaign.

“With Bernie Sanders now slightly ahead of Clinton nationally in the latest Bloomberg poll, it’s time to reevaluate the meaning of pragmatism. Hillary Clinton might be ahead of Bernie Sanders in delegates, but Vermont’s Senator has a monopoly on political momentum. Sadly, his opponent has a monopoly on controversy, and will face FBI interviews in the near future.”

HuffPost also cited a Los Angeles Times article about how formal interviews are being arranged with Clinton’s closest advisers as well as Clinton herself, indicating the investigation is reaching its final stages. By final stages, they mean that a possible indictment for criminal charges may drop any time, and they want to make sure that readers understand that this is a criminal investigation, which Goodman repeated multiple times throughout the opinion piece.

“The Christian Science Monitor clearly states the nature of the FBI’s investigation, stating ‘The FBI is indeed conducting a criminal investigation into the possible mishandling of classified information on the private email server Clinton used for State Department communications.’ Yes, Hillary supporters, ‘The FBI is indeed conducting a criminal investigation.'”

Democratic presidential candidate and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton testifies before the House Select Committee on Benghazi October 22, 2015 on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC. [Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images]

Other publications making it clear that this investigation is not just about possible misconduct but about criminal charges, include The Washington Post. And, it isn’t just media outlets jumping on the bandwagon to let the public know the gravity of the charges pending against Clinton and that this is not just another far-fetched scandal courtesy of the Republican Party, like so many attacks on the Clintons in the past. Former U.S. attorney general Michael Mukasey wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal back in January, claiming the charges were justified. Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, the retired chief of the Defense Intelligence Agency, told CNN‘s Jake Tapper that it was time for Clinton to drop out of the race back in February, long before the current surge in support for Sanders.

“If it were me, I would have been out the door and probably in jail… This over-classification excuse is not an excuse. If it’s classified, it’s classified.”

HuffPost Politics didn’t mince words on what many Sanders’ supporters have claimed was the DNC’s decision to anoint Hillary Clinton the Democratic Party nominee long before the primaries even began, regardless of who ran against her or what skeletons might lurk in her proverbial closet. They also cited her extreme negative favorability rating and how she fares far worse head-to-head with Trump in polls than her rival Sanders.

“It’s time for Democrats to deal with reality, not just allegiance to a political icon, and rally around the only candidate not linked to an FBI investigation, and other controversies. With recent victories and future wins ahead, Bernie Sanders has all the political momentum heading towards Election Day. Most importantly, Bernie Sanders is the only leading candidate with positive favorability ratings in 2016… Democrats can’t run a winning presidential campaign with the slogan, ‘We’ll save you from Trump with a person who’s less despised.'”

Real Clear Politics polls show Bernie Sanders consistently maintains a double digit lead over Donald Trump, while Hillary Clinton hovers around single digits — and has even dropped to below Trump’s ratings back in February — yet publications like Rolling Stone continue to claim Clinton as the stronger candidate against Trump when all polls indicate the exact opposite. All of this is taking place before the GOP goes on the attack against Clinton should she win the nomination for the general election.
It’s fair to say neither Donald Trump nor Ted Cruz will say “enough about your d*** emails.” Or that they will give Clinton a pass on the many other reasons Hillary needs to step aside.

The author of the article also recorded a video on YouTube, spelling out why Clinton will likely be indicted and how the email scandal in itself disqualifies her from being president, citing the fact that there are 22 emails that still can’t be shown to the American public, which indicates that they are indeed classified, despite arguments from Clinton to the contrary. Goodman says Clinton’s claims that the emails weren’t classified while they were on her private server are false, and that whole issue is irrelevant “spin” that doesn’t change the fact that the email issue alone makes Clinton unfit to be the Democratic party nominee or president.

“So you either have overt criminal activity, or someone who’s just not smart enough to keep state secrets safe. Either way, you’re not fit to be president.”

The HuffPost Politics article says that the subsequent cover-up has been as damaging, if not more so, than the scandal itself, much like Watergate derailed Richard Nixon. Goodman asks when the Democratic Party establishment will finally “admit this fiasco is horrible for a general election?” and notes that if “federal prosecutors are interviewing your candidate for president, even Donald Trump has a good chance at the White House.”
Just in case you didn’t draw the conclusion that Clinton’s email scandal will be her downfall and it’s time for her to drop out, this sums up the political point that only HuffPost Politics seems willing to make among the establishment media.

Democratic presidential candidate, Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-VT) campaigns at Chicago State University. [Photo by John Gress/Getty Images]

“Bernie is by far the superior candidate, and already matches up better against GOP rivals; without the myriad of issues faced by Clinton. For the country, and especially the Democratic Party, Hillary Clinton should concede the nomination to Bernie Sanders.”

And HuffPost Politics did mention this is a criminal investigation. Just in case you didn’t catch it the seven times it’s pointed out in the article.
[Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images]

Clinton: 'We didn’t lose a single person' in Libya

March 15, 2016, 07:34 am

By Mark Hensch

 http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/273012-clinton-we-didnt-lose-a-single-person-in-libya

 

Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton argued late Monday that U.S. involvement in deposing Libya leader Moammar Gadhafi had not cost any American lives.
“Libya was a different kind of calculation,” she said of military involvement there in 2011 compared with current efforts in Syria during a MSNBC town hall in Springfield, Ill.

“We didn’t lose a single person,” adde Clinton, who was secretary of State at the time. "We didn’t have a problem in supporting our European and Arab allies in working with NATO.“We’ve got to continue to support the Libyan people, to give them a chance, because otherwise you see what happened in Syria, with the consequences of millions of people flooding out of Syria, with more than 250,000 people killed, with terrorist groups like [the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria] taking up almost — huge blocks of territory, as big as some of the states in that area.”
Clinton also charged that the U.S. owed its foreign allies after their cooperation in the invasion of Afghanistan.
“If the United States is supposed to say, ‘You know what, that’s not our problem,’ then they’d come to us and say, ‘Yes, Afghanistan wasn’t our problem either,’” she said.
“That’s not the way you work with allies and build coalitions,” Clinton continued. "So what did we do there? We provided our unique abilities, and they ran most of the air missions. They were really very much involved in helping, you know, cordon off Libya and eventually defeating Gadhafi and his forces.
“Now, is Libya perfect? It isn’t. But they did have two elections that were free and fair where they voted for moderates. So, you know, changing from a dictator who has hallowed out your country to something resembling a functioning state and even hopefully a more democratic one doesn’t happen overnight.”
Clinton did not mention the September 11, 2012, terrorist attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, during her remarks. The incident resulted in four American deaths, including U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens.

Mistress Of Deception - More From The Hillary Chronicles

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 11/06/2015 15:00 -0500
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-11-06/mistress-deception-more-hillary-chronicles
Submitted by Andrew Napolitano via AntiWar.com,
The self-inflicted wounds of Hillary Rodham Clinton just keep manifesting themselves. She has two serious issues that have arisen in the past week; one is political and the other is legal. Both have deception at their root.
Her political problem is one of credibility. We know from her emails that she informed her daughter Chelsea and the then-prime minister of Egypt within 12 hours of the murder of the U.S. ambassador to Libya, J. Christopher Stevens, that he had been killed in Benghazi by al-Qaida. We know from the public record that the Obama administration’s narrative blamed the killings of the ambassador and his guards on an anonymous crowd’s spontaneous reaction to an anti-Muhammad video.
Over this past weekend we learned that her own embassy staff in Tripoli told her senior staff in Washington the day after the killings that the video was not an issue, and very few Libyans had seen it. We also know from her emails that the CIA informed her within 24 hours of the ambassador’s murder that it had been planned by al-Qaida 12 days before the actual killings.
Nevertheless, she persisted in blaming the video. When she received the bodies of Ambassador Stevens and his three bodyguards at Andrews Air Force base three days after their murders, she told the media and the families of the deceased assembled there that the four Americans had been killed by a spontaneous mob reacting to a cheap 15-minute anti-Muhammad video.
Clinton’s sordid behavior throughout this unhappy affair reveals a cavalier attitude about the truth and a ready willingness to deceive the public for short-term political gain. This might not harm her political aspirations with her base in the Democratic Party; but it will be a serious political problem for her with independent voters, without whose support she simply cannot be elected.
Yet, her name might not appear on any ballot in 2016.
That’s because, each time she addresses these issues – her involvement in Benghazi and her emails – her legal problems get worse. We already know that the FBI has been investigating her for espionage (the failure to secure state secrets), destruction of government property and obstruction of justice (wiping her computer server clean of governmental emails that were and are the property of the federal government), and perjury (lying to a federal judge about whether she returned all governmental emails to the State Department).
Now, she has added new potential perjury and misleading Congress issues because of her deceptive testimony to the House Benghazi committee. In 2011, when President Obama persuaded NATO to enact and enforce a no-fly zone over Libya, he sent American intelligence agents on the ground. Since they were not military and were not shooting at Libyan government forces, he could plausibly argue that he had not put "boots" on the ground. Clinton, however, decided that she could accelerate the departure of the Libyan strongman, Col. Moammar Gadhafi, by arming some of the Libyan rebel groups that were attempting to oppose him and thus helping them to shoot at government forces.
So, in violation of federal law and the U.N. arms embargo on Libya she authorized the shipment of American arms to Qatar, knowing they’d be passed off to Libyan rebels, some of whom were al-Qaida, a few of whom killed Ambassador Stevens using American-made weapons. When asked about this, she said she knew nothing of it. The emails underlying this are in the public domain. Clinton not only knew of the arms-to-Libyan-rebels deal, she authored and authorized it. She lied about this under oath.
After surveying the damage done to his regime and his family by NATO bombings, Col. Kaddafi made known his wish to negotiate a peaceful departure from Libya. When his wish was presented to Clinton, a source in the room with Clinton has revealed that she silently made the "off with his head" hand motion by moving her hand quickly across her neck. She could do that because she knew the rebels were well equipped with American arms with which to kill him. She didn’t care that many of the rebels were al-Qaida or that arming them was a felony. She lied about this under oath.
My Fox News colleagues Catherine Herridge and Pamela Browne have scrutinized Clinton’s testimony with respect to her friend and adviser Sidney Blumenthal. Recall that President Obama vetoed Clinton’s wish to hire him as her State Department senior adviser. So she had the Clinton Foundation pay him a greater salary than the State Department would have, and he became her silent de facto advisor.
They emailed each other hundreds of times during her tenure. He provided intelligence to her, which he obtained from a security company on the ground in Libya in which he had a financial interest. He advised her on how to present herself to the media. He even advocated the parameters of the Libyan no-fly zone and she acted upon his recommendations. Yet she told the committee he was "just a friend." She was highly deceptive and criminally misleading about this under oath.
It is difficult to believe that the federal prosecutors and FBI agents investigating Clinton will not recommend that she be indicted. Inexplicably, she seems to have forgotten that they were monitoring what she said under oath to the Benghazi committee. By lying under oath, and by misleading Congress, she gave that team additional areas to investigate and on which to recommend indictments.
When those recommendations are made known, no ballot will bear her name.

Oh My: Documents Show Top Defense Officials Briefed Obama Minutes After Assault On Benghazi Began It Was A “Terrorist Attack,” Not A Video Or Protest…

This blows every excuse the regime has given out of the water.
Via Fox News:

Minutes after the American consulate in Benghazi came under assault on Sept. 11, 2012, the nation’s top civilian and uniformed defense officials — headed for a previously scheduled Oval Office session with President Obama — were informed that the event was a “terrorist attack,” declassified documents show. The new evidence raises the question of why the top military men, one of whom was a member of the president’s Cabinet, allowed him and other senior Obama administration officials to press a false narrative of the Benghazi attacks for two weeks afterward.
Gen. Carter Ham, who at the time was head of AFRICOM, the Defense Department combatant command with jurisdiction over Libya, told the House in classified testimony last year that it was him who broke the news about the unfolding situation in Benghazi to then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The tense briefing — in which it was already known that U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens had been targeted and had gone missing — occurred just before the two senior officials departed the Pentagon for their session with the commander in chief.
According to declassified testimony obtained by Fox News, Ham — who was working out of his Pentagon office on the afternoon of Sept. 11 — said he learned about the assault on the consulate compound within 15 minutes of its commencement, at 9:42 p.m. Libya time, through a call he received from the AFRICOM Command Center.
“My first call was to General Dempsey, General Dempsey’s office, to say, ‘Hey, I am headed down the hall. I need to see him right away,’” Ham told lawmakers on the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation on June 26 of last year. “I told him what I knew. We immediately walked upstairs to meet with Secretary Panetta.”
Ham’s account of that fateful day was included in some 450 pages of testimony given by senior Pentagon officials in classified, closed-door hearings conducted last year by the Armed Services subcommittee. The testimony, given under “Top Secret” clearance and only declassified this month, presents a rare glimpse into how information during a crisis travels at the top echelons of America’s national security apparatus, all the way up to the president.
Also among those whose secret testimony was declassified was Dempsey, the first person Ham briefed about Benghazi. Ham told lawmakers he considered it a fortuitous “happenstance” that he was able to rope Dempsey and Panetta into one meeting, so that, as Ham put it, “they had the basic information as they headed across for the meeting at the White House.” Ham also told lawmakers he met with Panetta and Dempsey when they returned from their 30-minute session with President Obama on Sept. 11.
Keep reading…