Tuesday, December 1, 2015

"New Clinton emails contradict Benghazi testimony"

"A new batch of Hillary Clinton's emails made public Monday by the State Department indicate the former secretary of state was worried about whether she had overplayed the administration's Benghazi narrative, blaming the attack on a demonstration over a YouTube clip, less than two weeks after four Americans at the diplomatic compound in Benghazi were killed."
More than three years after the attack, Clinton is only now facing questions about how she characterized the raid.
Jake Sullivan, a top Clinton aide, assured the former secretary of state on Sept. 24, 2012 that she had not misled the public on the impetus of the terror attacks nearly two weeks earlier.
"You never said spontaneous or characterized the motives," Sullivan wrote in an email to Clinton. "In fact you were careful in your first statement to say we were assessing motive and method. The way you treated the video in the Libya context was to say that some sought to *justify* the attack on that basis."
Sullivan compiled a list of all the public statements Clinton had made about Benghazi up to that date so she could remember exactly what she had said so far.
Emails sent the night of the attack indicate Clinton did indeed receive updates about the unfolding violence in Benghazi via her private, unsecured email network, contrary to her testimony in an Oct. 22 hearing before the House Select Committee on Benghazi.
Clinton argued last month that she had conducted the majority of her work outside of email and that she had been receiving live updates about the attack in person, not on her private server. When describing her modes of communication she used on the night of the attack, Clinton cited secure phones and the SCIF, or sensitive compartmented information facility used for viewing classified material, in her home.
But Clinton defended the lack of Benghazi updates among her private emails by arguing that most of her communications did not take place over email.

14 comments:

WWIII Joe Biden, Husk-Puppet + America's Putin said...

Corrupt leftwing dictators who lust for power and centralized control - lie, and are happy to do so.

WWIII Joe Biden, Husk-Puppet + America's Putin said...

Drudge has a link up about HIllary that is so over-the-top biased in her favor.

"Clinton is the overwhelming favorite to win the Democratic presidential nomination next year and is expected to be a tough candidate for any Republican to face in 2016.

Yet the controversy surrounding her private email account remains an Achilles’ heel.

The GOP-created House Benghazi Committee flopped in October when Clinton testified for 11 hours. That hearing failed to produce anything newsworthy about her use of a private server and attracted criticism from liberals and conservatives alike."


REally? Nothing? No mention of her lies about the video? nah. the hack press delivers.

JRoberts said...

Give Hillary a break.

After all, she's an old woman who's had a brain fart.

I think the Americans with Disabilities Act REQUIRES us to elect this disabled old woman to the White House.

deborah said...

I'm wondering if the State Department and CIA are saying, 'no effing way' to a Clinton presidency, and will try their best to bring her down no matter how many presidential directives come down trying to block them. Currently they're coming forward saying they were ordered to not deliver the truth about a growing ISIS threat.

Lem the artificially intelligent said...

Hillary will not be prosecuted do to an abundance of evidence.

deborah said...

I agree, but it could possibly sway the election.

bagoh20 said...

Is there a Hillary supporter out there who would change their vote to a freaking Republican? C'mon, this shit makes no difference to them. There are Hillary supporters and their are also simple Democrat voters. Both will never vote Republican no matter what, and they are probably 45% of the vote. In 2008, I thought she was a safer bet than Obama, mostly because she was more experienced, more hawkish, and he was dangerously flaccid on foreign affairs. That analysis turned out right. However, I was hopeful that a "Black" President would actually make racism less of an issue. I'm an idiot, but I live in an infantocracy, which makes me a powerful voice of wisdom in my land.

Methadras said...

"we've given you a republic, if you can keep it" - Ben Franklin

Nope, don't care anymore about that. We now have a dynastic-oligarchical-kleptocracy. People will let themselves be lied to right to their face by these people and they will clap like seals for more as long as the gravy train keeps rolling on the backs of those that actually give a sh*t, but we are outnumbered now by the parasites rather than the producers. The reckoning will not be good, I assure you.

edutcher said...

Drip, drip, drip.

Woods, Stevens, Smith, and Doherty are not done.

bagoh20 said...

Is there a Hillary supporter out there who would change their vote to a freaking Republican? C'mon, this shit makes no difference to them. There are Hillary supporters and their are also simple Democrat voters. Both will never vote Republican no matter what, and they are probably 45% of the vote

That gives us 55%.

deborah said...

I'm wondering if the State Department and CIA are saying, 'no effing way' to a Clinton presidency, and will try their best to bring her down no matter how many presidential directives come down trying to block them

The fact there are careerists doesn't always make them Lefties and this is how the pros get their point across.

Nicely done, ma'am. If we had Likes and stuff, I'd give you one.

edutcher said...

I think the vote fraud won't be the weapon it was last time.

I don't see Trump or Cruz sitting still for it.

As for "wingnuts pissed off because the Republican is not flawless", apparently, they didn't exist.

Again, if the Republican nominee is willing to fight, we just might have something like that 55%.

Methadras said...

deborah said...

I'm wondering if the State Department and CIA are saying, 'no effing way' to a Clinton presidency, and will try their best to bring her down no matter how many presidential directives come down trying to block them. Currently they're coming forward saying they were ordered to not deliver the truth about a growing ISIS threat.


That's an interesting theory, but they are outnumbered many times over by her supporters that she probably has placed at all levels and will strike when the time is right. Leftists are a devious, craven, and cretinous bunch. They will bend their knees to her.

deborah said...

Meth, you and bags are most likely correct. But I'm thinking there's a maybe 30% chance she'll jump the shark between now and then. A terrible Freudian slip or something. And don't underestimate the possibility of certain liberal men, not being able to stomach the cackle and other similar stuff, following their gut in the privacy of the voting booth.

JAL said...

Maybe she will trip and fall. Again.

She really is not well. Where was she for those weeks in the spring she was AWOL? Having her mini face lift? Or rehabbing?

deborah said...

You make an excellent point, JAL. Campaigning for another year when already compromised is not a recipe for good health.