Hillary Clinton will testify under oath for the first time about the attack on the Benghazi consulate on September 11, 2012 while she was in charge of the State Department. Previously, she was not under oath.
The successful attack and the subsequent cover up is believed to have been the result of incompetent handling by the entire administration including the State Department under the leadership of Hillary Clinton who has creatively taken responsibility without admitting to any responsibility.
Hillary Clinton has said that she didn’t know anything about the security in Benghazi and that it wasn’t in her realm of responsibility. The press and her fellow Democrats have allowed her to get away with that and even cover for her.
The following five issues will be in play during her testimony. We’ve included some examples of available evidence that we know of so far.
1. THE SERVER PROBLEM
Clinton deleted her emails and there were two-and-a-half months missing centered around the time of the Benghazi event until November.
Clinton claimed she never had information on her server, while classified retroactively, had ‘extraordinarily sensitive’ information “with the names of people arrested by the Libyan government in the days after the 2011 attack on our consulate,” Ambassador Bolton said in May of this year.
“Don’t you think people should have the wit to understand that the names of the people who are being tagged for that murderous attack on our consulate is an extraordinarily sensitive subject That you should only send over a classified email system? It also tells you that the disregard of sensitivity is going to show up again and again and again as she evaded the normal practices at the department.”
The Ambassador said, “The most telling information we’ve seen so far in this limited number of emails,” he said, is that there are repeated examples of Secretary of State Clinton being told [in] 2011, 2012, that the security situation of our personnel in Tripoli and Benghazi was very precarious. That the country’s government had fallen apart. That the threat from terrorist attacks was high and that our people there were very concerned about it, ” he added.
In her limited appearances to date, she has said she didn’t get involved in those details. A stunning admission. “It was called to her attention repeatedly and she didn’t do a thing about it,” the former Ambassador to the UN said.
“During the fight against Gaddafi, in 2011, do you think the United States Navy rescued our personnel in Tripoli? We had to rent a Greek ferry boat to come across the Mediterranean to take our people out,” Bolton continued.
“And even after that, we didn’t do anything to increase security for our official personnel or private citizens in Libya. On the day of the attack, she has said, in public testimony, she never once spoke to Leon Panetta, the Secretary of Defense. Now, all of those six Secretary of States I worked for would have been on the phone every 15 minutes to the Secretary of Defense saying ‘what can we do to protect our people.’” He continued, “What did she do? She went home, he said with heavy emphasis on the word ‘home’.”
2. THE WARNINGS
By September 15, 2012, we all knew that Sean Smith, one of the murdered diplomats at the Libyan Embassy, in a message to fellow gamers just prior to his death said, ”Assuming we don’t die tonight. We saw one of our ‘police’ that guard the compound taking pictures.” The February 17th Brigade, an armed Libyan militia group, not the Marines, were guarding the embassy.
On September 17th, CNN reported that the U.S. was warned about serious security threats three days before the attack. A local security official said he met with American diplomats in the city and warned them about deteriorating security.
Jamal Mabrouk, a member of the February 17th Brigade, told CNN that he and a battalion commander had a meeting about the economy and security. He told the diplomats that the security situation wasn’t good for international business.
“The situation is frightening, it scares us,” Mabrouk said they told the U.S. officials. He did not say how they responded.
Mabrouk said it was not the first time he has warned foreigners about the worsening security situation in the face of the growing presence of armed jihadist groups in the Benghazi area.
The UK Independent said the Obama administration had 48 hours notice that the embassies in Cairo and Benghazi were targets but they did nothing to warn them or put them in lockdown. The attack might have been an inside job.
October 21 2012, Reps Darrell Issa and Jason Chaffetz said they’d “been told repeatedly” that the Obama administration not only “repeatedly reject(ed) requests for increased security despite escalating violence, but it also systematically decreased existing security to dangerous and ineffective levels,” and did so “to effectuate a policy of ‘normalization’ in Libya after the conclusion of its civil war.”
This “normalization,” the GOP congressman Jason Chaffetz wrote, “appeared to have been aimed at conveying the impression that the situation in Libya was getting better, not worse. The administration’s decision to normalize was the basis for systematically withdrawing security personnel and equipment – including a much-needed DC-3 aircraft – without taking into account the reality on the ground. In an interview with Mr. Nordstrom, he maintained that the State Department routinely made decisions about security in early 2012 without first consulting him.”
The Daily Beast reported on September 26th that intelligence officials knew within 24 hours that al Qaeda was behind the attack:
Within 24 hours of the 9-11 anniversary attack on the United States consulate in Benghazi, U.S. intelligence agencies had strong indications al Qaeda–affiliated operatives were behind the attack, and had even pinpointed the location of one of those attackers. Three separate U.S. intelligence officials who spoke to The Daily Beast said the early information was enough to show that the attack was planned and the work of al Qaeda affiliates operating in Eastern Libya…
During the mid-October debates, Joe Biden claimed officials in Libya never asked for more security, however, testimony at the House hearings the week before proved that security personnel pleaded for more security in Benghazi, only to have their security detail reduced.
Biden blamed the intelligence community for not knowing that the Benghazi attack was due to a protest over the obscure movie trailer. That statement was debunked by Mr. Clapper who said he told the White House and the State Department that it was a terrorist attack by enemy operatives. By the time Biden said this, everyone knew it wasn’t over the video.
During mid-October House hearings in 2012, Lieutenant Colonel Andrew Wood told a Congressional committee that his special forces troops, who were assigned to protect American diplomats in Libya, were withdrawn weeks before the attack and that Washington ignored warnings that the consulate was vulnerable.
The administration again attempted to place the blame on the intelligence community and assumed no blame. They claim the CIA head told them it was a movie trailer protest.
While President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton were still trying to decide if it was a preplanned al-Qaida attack, the British wondered where their weapons and vehicles are. No doubt they are with the same people who have possession of the 10,000 to 20,000 Gaddafi weapons which went missing after we instigated the civil war in Libya. An instigation which showed little consideration for protecting Gaddafi’s arsenal which included chemical weapons.
During the same time period, Obama’s PR person, Stephanie Cutter indicated that investigating was the same as politicizing the event.
By October 23rd, Internal State Department emails obtained by Fox News showed that 300 – 400 national security figures knew about the attack on the Benghazi mission as it was playing out and ending. At least one email indicated that Ansar al Sharia, an al-Qaida affiliate, claimed responsibility for the attack while the attack was ongoing. The group took credit on Facebook and Twitter.
3. THE VIDEO
Filmmaker Nakoula Basseley Nakoula was dragged into court twice and served a year in jail on a probation charge for uploading the video he created, a charge which would not normally warrant it. He had even been remanded without bail after a very visible and unnecessary perp walk from his home in the middle of the night.
Tyrone Woods father said that on the day the bodies including his son’s were brought back to the US, Hillary told him she would have the filmmaker arrested.
By September 20th, the U.S. has bought $70,000 worth of air time on seven Pakistani television channels to air an ad showing President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton denouncing the anti-Islamic video that had allegedly sparked violent protests in the Middle East and North Africa.
On September 25th, Barack Obama apologized to the UN for the video, basically he apologized for our free speech while he lied.
The liberal media, instead of reporting the facts, went along with the absurd story that the riots were caused by the video no one ever heard of and it became a basis for promoting their other issues.
The LA Times saw risky low budget films and trailers as the result of actors working outside the union.
HuffPo wrote a similar story but used their piece as an opportunity to knock the movie, Act of Valor, by portraying it as a military recruitment film. The HuffPo article ends with this hint at limiting free speech, In the meantime, we should all pay closer attention to who’s projecting their ideas onto our screens — and why. As if their films aren’t filled with liberal propaganda.
Hollywood, ignored the fact that the attack in Benghazi was planned for months prior to the posting of the trailer in June, believed this shows the power of YouTube, not the weakness of the U.S. administration. They said the movie caused these riots even though they were clearly the actions of Islamo-Fascist terrorists who hate the U.S.
The New York Times posted a dishonest story as late as 2014. The NY Times posted a six-page summary of an “investigation” which alleged that there was no al-Qaeda link to the Benghazi attack and that the video did prompt the attack.
We know that Hillary discussed the possibility the video caused the attack while the attack was taking place. She discussed it with Sidney Blumenthal the day after the attack. Blumental suggested it was the “sacrilegious Internet video” that caused the attack.
So there was Hillary, not listening to the men on the ground who clearly said there was no protest and it was a terror attack which included Ansar al-Sharia. Instead she listened to a confidante banned by the Obama administration.
At the end of October, Time Magazine reporter Steven Sotloff, who was later beheaded by ISIS, reported that there was no protest the night of the attack and everyone knew.
The attack didn’t interfere with Hillary’s sleep. Hillary slept through the President’s 3am Daily Briefing during Benghazi. She got up at 10:40 am instead.
4. THEY KNEW ABOUT THE LACK OF SECURITY
The administration knew about the lack of security and they did nothing to save the men when they were in trouble. There was an order for the men who wanted to save them to “not engage”. The administration has continually claimed there was no stand down order but the men on the ground testified there was.
October 5, 2012, Jake Tapper of ABC News obtained an internal May 3, 2012 State Department email in which the State Department denied a request from the security team at the Embassy of Libya to retain a DC-3 airplane in the country to better conduct their duties. Ambassador Stevens, who was murdered in Benghazi, was copied on the email.
The email was another indication that the Americans in Libya were concerned about safety the previous May and were possibly ignored by the State Department.
By October 15, 2012, we knew: The Ambassador’s journal indicated that he feared for his life; There were no security measures in place on the anniversary of 9/11; There had been 48 attacks in Benghazi and a total of 230 in Libya overall; Libyan employees quite their jobs at the consulate months before the attack and told the Ambassador and other US officials that a big attack was coming; Within days of the attack, the Libyan guards said an attack was coming; There was no evidence of a protest. Lt. Col. Andrew Wood and Eric Nordstrom, security officials, pleaded for more security and were given less security; High level intelligence documents went missing along with weapons and equipment belonging to the Brits who had left shortly before after an attack on their Ambassador.
The US consulate building, which was basically unprotected, also did not meet code. Cables warned it could not be defended. The cables which went to Hillary Clinton’s office clearly stated that it was only a matter of time before they were attacked to rid the area of Westerners.
5. THE TALKING POINTS
After the election, on November 14th, Obama admitted in a press conference that he was the one who requested Susan Rice to appear on the Sunday news shows, September 16th, with the best information she had at the time. President Obama, speaking with plausible deniability, did not say he gave her the misinformation.
“…she made an appearance at the request of the White House in which she gave her[notice he said HER] best understanding of the intelligence that had been provided to her…they should go after me…”
Susan Rice spread misinformation on the Sunday News Shows in lieu of Hillary Clinton or another State Department official who would have been the more logical to appear on the Sunday Shows.
Susan Rice had access to all classified intelligence, including the full presidential daily brief before her appearance on the Sunday news shows on September 16th. The intelligence she had contained compelling information that there was no protest in Benghazi and that it was an attack by al-Qaida or an al-Qaida affiliate.
Susan Rice said the following prior to this new revelation:
“When discussing the attacks against our facilities in Benghazi, I relied solely and squarely on the information provided to me by the intelligence community. I made clear that the information was preliminary and that our investigations would give us the definitive answers,” Rice said.
As an aside, did you notice that when Hillary Clinton appeared to spread the tale about the video, President Obama was by her side? She wasn’t going down alone.
President Obama and Hillary Clinton continued to spin the story that the attack on the Benghazi Embassy was spontaneous, unplanned, and the result of an inane movie trailer, but while they were doing that, Libyan President Mohammed el-Megarif was saying the attack was planned well beforehand.
Libyan President Mugarif stated the obvious by September 16th 2012:
“The idea that this criminal and cowardly act was a spontaneous protest that just spun out of control is completely unfounded and preposterous,” he says. “We firmly believe that this was a precalculated, preplanned attack that was carried out specifically to attack the U.S. Consulate.”
President Mugarif said al Qaeda was behind the attacks and was attacked by the US administration, weakening his position as president.
THE AMBASSADOR’S EMAILS
On September 26th, Senator Corker asked for all cables that passed between the State Department and Ambassador Stevens. It was a bipartisan request with every member of the Foreign Relations Committee, Democrats and Republicans asking for the information. Their prior briefings offered less information that they could find out in the news. The emails were given to the committee yesterday.