Judge Orders Release of What Hillary Really Said About Benghazi


A federal judge ruled Friday that the State Department must reveal the contents of two emails sent two days after the 2012 attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Libya.

The information was secured by Judicial Watch (JW) after the emails were released via FOIA. JW then sued because the government redacted the contents to keep the text secret.

U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson read the emails and said the exemption claimed by the government was not applicable.

“The full emails may reveal what former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and President Obama knew about the Sept. 11, 2012, terror attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi,” Judicial Watch said in a statement.

The subject of the emails: “Quick Summary of POTUS Calls to Presidents of Libya and Egypt.”

Americans were told by the president and Hillary Clinton that the Benghazi attack was the result of a video protest, but Hillary told the Egyptian Prime Minister that it was a terror attack.

Privately, Clinton’s deputy chief of staff wrote an email that said “we are not saying that the violence in Libya erupted ‘over inflammatory videos,’” and Clinton told the Egyptian Prime Minister that the video had nothing to do with the Benghazi attacks.

“We know that the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack — not a protest,” Hillary said in a call to Egypt’s prime minister. “Based on the information we saw today, we believe the group that claimed responsibility for this was affiliated with al Qaeda.”

On Sept. 14, 2012, White House spokesman Jay Carney, said, “We have no information to suggest that it was a preplanned attack. The unrest we’ve seen around the region has been in reaction to a video that Muslims, many Muslims find offensive. And while the violence is reprehensible and unjustified, it is not a reaction to the 9/11 anniversary that we know of, or to U.S. policy.”

There were numerable other instances of the administration blaming the video and the videographer was thrown in jail for a year on a charge tied to a former conviction for which one rarely goes to jail.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments