28 thoughts on “The Benghazi Hearing”

  1. Then, the capper: Hillary said that when Stevens wrote an email asking about whether the Benghazi compound would be closed, he was just being a sly jokester. She said, “One of the great attributes that Chris Stevens had was a really good sense of humor, and I just see him smiling as he’s typing this because it’s clearly in response to the email down below talking about picking up a few ‘fire sale items from the Brits.’” When told that those “fire sale items” were security barricades, Hillary answered, “Well, I thought it showed their entrepreneurial spirit.” Disgusting.

    I read about that elsewhere and agree that it is in a word “disgusting”. A proper response to that email would have avoided the “3am phone call” situation. It could have avoided bloodshed on both sides. She saw that email. It reached her desk. And she blew it off. She’s unfit to be Secretary of State, much less President.

    1. Lets look at this like a Clinton. She promised to answer phone calls at 3 am. Emails aren’t phone calls so she lives up to her promise to always be there to do what is necessary to protect Americans. And she totally would have answered a call from Ambassador Stevens, if he had her phone number.

  2. It is a horrid SHAME that there is a major political party in this country where the ability to blatantly lie with a straight face is a resume enhancement.

    If they will lie for you, they will lie to you.

  3. Hillary maintained on Thursday that she believed the attack still had something to do with the YouTube video, “The Innocence of Muslims.” But the night of the attack, she emailed Chelsea Clinton and told her that an al-Qaeda-like group had killed the ambassador.

    How is that even a contradiction, much less a lie? The video inspired protests in Cairo and elsewhere, and the attackers in Benghazi were aware of those protests. It isn’t a stretch to think that the protests influenced the timing of the attack.

    I’m more curious about the statement to the Egyptian Prime Minister (“We know the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack. Not a protest.”) on September 12. What is the source for that quote? If she really said those exact words it was quite foolish of her; even today we don’t know that the attack had “nothing” to do with the video, and on September 12 the CIA still thought there’d been a protest in Benghazi.

    My prediction: the FBI will not recommend prosecution before January 20, 2017. Check back then to see whose prediction was right.

    1. “My prediction: the FBI will not recommend prosecution before January 20, 2017. Check back then to see whose prediction was right.”

      Um, Jim, I think you’re guaranteed to be 100% right with that statement, because the FBI does officially not recommend prosecution.

      Per the FBI website;
      “Although the FBI is responsible for investigating possible violations of federal law, the FBI does not give an opinion or decide if an individual will be prosecuted. The federal prosecutors employed by the Department of Justice or the U.S. Attorneys offices are responsible for making this decision and for conducting the prosecution of the case.”

      1. Yes, but the FBI can provide evidence that laws were broken and by whom. What Justice decides to do with that evidence is not up to the FBI, but as I said, you can count on leaks if they choose not to charge.

      2. Well, it’s not like the DOJ is going to do anything. We can all predict that the DOJ won’t do anything, just like they haven’t for Lerner or any other member of the administration engaging in corruption.

    3. How is that even a contradiction, much less a lie?

      Because they can’t both be true. The public story was that this was a spontaneous uprising due to a YouTube video. The secret story was that she knew it was a pre-planned Al Qaeda attack all along and lied to the public for a number of days about the matter.

      even today we don’t know that the attack had “nothing” to do with the video

      Sure, we do.

      1. Because they can’t both be true.

        Of course they can. An Al Qaeda-like group can choose to launch an attack in response to a video.

        1. An Al Qaeda-like group can choose to launch an attack in response to a video.

          That wouldn’t result in two different stories, a public one and a secret one at odds with the public story. This isn’t about some imaginary group hypothetically getting upset over YouTube videos. It’s about Clinton, in a position of trust, lying to the public.

        2. An Al Qaeda-like group

          That article you keep quoting says the NYT found no link to Al Qaeda. So which is it Jim, do you believe the NYT that there is no link to Al Qaeda and the attack was just about a protest of the video; or do you believe Hillary Clinton words to her daughter?

          1. When Clinton wrote her email to Chelsea the information she had was that it was an “Al Qaeda-like group”. And it was, in the sense that it was a violent anti-American Islamist group, whether it was linked to Al Qaeda proper or not.

      1. The video and protests were big news on Arab satellite TV networks. The New York Times reported:

        Then, on Sept. 8, a popular Islamist preacher lit the fuse by screening a clip of the video on the ultraconservative Egyptian satellite channel El Nas. American diplomats in Cairo raised the alarm in Washington about a growing backlash, including calls for a protest outside their embassy.

        No one mentioned it to the American diplomats in Libya. But Islamists in Benghazi were watching. Egyptian satellite networks like El Nas and El Rahma were widely available in Benghazi. “It is Friday morning viewing,” popular on the day of prayer, said one young Benghazi Islamist who turned up at the compound during the attack, speaking on the condition of anonymity for fear of reprisals.

        and:

        Around dusk, the Pan-Arab satellite networks began broadcasting footage of protesters breaching the walls of the American Embassy in Cairo, pulling down the American flag and running up the black banner of militant Islam. Young men around Benghazi began calling one another with the news, several said, and many learned of the video for the first time.

        1. Are you claiming the NYT lead the attack in Benghazi? Because I didn’t ask for evidence of what the NYT watched.

          I asked where is your evidence that the attackers were aware of the protestors. First step, name the attackers. Second, interview them to ask them if they were aware of the protests. Do that and then get back to us with the evidence.

          1. More from the same article:

            There is no doubt that anger over the video motivated many attackers. A Libyan journalist working for The New York Times was blocked from entering by the sentries outside, and he learned of the film from the fighters who stopped him. Other Libyan witnesses, too, said they received lectures from the attackers about the evil of the film and the virtue of defending the prophet.

            Seriously, can there be any doubt that the attackers, like many in the TV-watching Arab world, were aware of the protests over the video?

          2. “Seriously, can there be any doubt that”

            Sure, doubtful they were very good with their sourcing. Did they hire Mary Mapes? The author was not there on the scene but rather months after? Years?

            There is also a pattern of fabricating news stories like this in the region with Democrats in our media actively aiding in the fabrication. We see it all the time in coverage of Israel, Iraq, and other countries in the region. It always ends up the same, with Democrats and militant muslim groups spouting the same talking points.

          3. Lots of doubt since we still don’t know who the attackers were. Like I said name them. Interview them. Quoting an unsourced NYT article is not evidence.

    5. Jim, you forgot the Clintonian parsing of the words. Hillary is claiming she didn’t say the attack was motivated by the video only that some of the attackers were and that we can’t assume 9/11’s anniversary as a cause because it is impossible to ascertain people’s motives without reading their minds.

      So there you go, you can now claim some of the attackers were motivated by the video and also claim you can’t be proven wrong because it’s impossible to know motives.

  4. It’s worth bearing in mind that when the JD dragged its feet on indicting Petraus, the FBI started leaking like a sieve, not just to congress, but to the press. The result was that Petraus was indicted. So, I agree with Rand in his prediction that *if* the JD does not indict, the FBI will start leaking a lot.

    However… I’m not so sure the JD won’t indict. Biden says he decided not to run, but he sure took pains to leave the door open if he’s needed.

    Here’s my scenario; the JD indicts, Hillary drops out and endorses Biden, and purely coincidentally, Obama pardons Hillary after the election.

    My guess is that Obama, who has little love lost with the Clintons, prefers Biden as a successor, and can achieve that goal simply by not interfering with the JD. A further factor is Obama, after his experience with Petraus, knows that there will be a lot of Hillary-damaging leaks if the JD does not indict, so Biden is the most electable of the two.

    As for madam, secretary’s testimony, the very idea of laughing off Stevens’ plea that way makes my skin crawl.

  5. Hey, don’t worry guys. Hillary’s contempt for law and the Constitution, and her apparent unshakable belief that rules are for little people, and little things like “right” and “wrong” are just old-fashioned thinking that has no place in the modern world? They mean she’d make a GREAT President! No, really:

    http://www.vox.com/2015/10/6/9461021/hillary-clinton-executive-power

    Matthew Yglesias says he’s 100% A-OK with having the Hildabeast in the White House, not despite her long history of sociopathic behavior, lies, chicanery, and legal pettifoggery, but because of them. I sent him an email asking him whether he’d be okay with someone he finds less palatable making use of the precedents she’d establish. He has not, of course, responded.

    1. Yeah, Jim ballooned that pitch here nearly a month ago. When your best line is “I’m as corrupt as other politicians, but I’m a woman”; your campaign is toast.

  6. Will any prosecutions come of this? The current executive regime is as responsive to corruption in it’s ranks as was George III of England in addressing abuses by his officers against the colonies.

  7. See this, and the NR article it links to. “She lied to the nation in 2012 and she’s lying again now. You don’t look surprised.” But Neo-neocon has a depressing point: the MSM doesn’t care. They’re even worse than a lockstep party-line hack like Baghdad Jim. He may actually be the brainwashed Eloi he comes across as, but those press people have to be more savvy and cynical. But as long as the Hildabeest gets the job done (the “job” being to extend the power of the State and diminish the liberty of the individual), their attitude is, “You go, sexless Alinskyite crone!” I mean, “You go, girl!”

Comments are closed.