*VIDEO* Bill Whittle: It Takes A Superhero


.

.

Hillary, Hillary, you shameless liar you

I am, it would seem, a terrorist in the eyes of she who would be queen. I am not alone though, Bob Owens, he must be a terrorist too!

It appears that the woman who was so corrupt that she was thrown out of the Watergate trial isn’t a fan of guns in the hands of anyone except Vince Foster.

During a town hall meeting today, Clinton said that American gun owners opposed to universal background checks—an prerequisite for registration and confiscation— are terrorizing the rest of the nation.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton spoke about her views on gun control Tuesday, saying she was “disappointed” Congress did not pass a universal background checks bill after “the horrors” of the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting.

In fact, we have, and have had background checks for buying a gun since the early 90′s. This is the truth no matter Statists like Clinton knowingly LIE and say there are no background checks

“I believe that we need a more thoughtful conversation, we cannot let a minority of people — and that’s what it is, it is a minority of people — hold a viewpoint that terrorizes the majority of people,” Clinton said during a CNN town hall.

Did you catch that folks. We, the Collective, the Community, simply cannot allow certain viewpoints because that might “terrorize” the majority. apparently Ms. Clinton wants to control your speech too

Clinton said she feels for parents sending their kids to school, noting that there have been 74 school shootings since Sandy Hook.

No, there have NOT BEEN 74 school shootings since Sandy Hook. That claim was patently false, and was absolutely debunked by Politifact AND CNN Ms. Clinton.

“I don’t think any parent, any person, should have to fear about their child going to school or going to college because someone, for whatever reasons — psychological, emotional, political, ideological, whatever it means — could possibly enter that school property with an automatic weapon and murder innocent children, students, teachers,” Clinton said.

Here we go again, a Statist talking of eliminating fear as if they can control that. Not to mention that nothing that Ms. Clinton supports would have stopped any of the recent mass shootings.  Even a spokestool of Bloomberg admits that

At our companion site Townhall.com Katie Pavlich notes that the man who was Michael Bloomberg’s top paid gun grabber has admitted that the various citizen control schemes proposed by gun control groups would have had no impact on mass shootings:

Meet Mark Glaze, the former executive director and face of Michael Bloomberg’s Everytown For Gun Safety,a group that used to be called Mayors Against Illegal Guns [MAIG]. Whenever a mass shooting occurs (which despite popular belief and hysteria from the media, isn’t happening more frequently than it used to), Glaze takes to the airwaves to demand new gun control legislation, specifically expanded background checks.

As of Friday, Glaze left his post with MAIG Everytown and is admitting in an exit interview with the Wall Street Journal that the proposals outlined by the gun control group and sent to Congress, would not have prevented mass shootings in the past and won’t stop them in the future.

Make sure that you read Glaze’s exact words, which are an admission that the gun control policies pushed by Moms Demand Action From Illegal Mayors In Everytown (MDAIMIE) will in no way slow or stop mass killings.

So, if you are a supporter of “#gunsense” ask yourself why these laws are being pushed if the people pushing them ADMIT they will never prevent a shooting at a school or other public place? Then ask yourself why you would ever support a candidate that supported such laws.

Well, I guess we can scratch “best selling author” off of Hillary’s accomplishments

Smitty is laughing at Mrs. Clinton’s shortcomings

Pardon me while I munch on the schadenstrudel:

According to this source, a Simon & Schuster insider, “They sold 60,000 hard covers first week and 24,000 ebooks.” The publishing house was “hoping and praying for 150,000 print first week.”

“The 60k represents a less than 10% sell thru based on what they shipped,” says the source.

It’s been reported that one million copies of Clinton’s book were shipped weeks before the June 10 publication date. “They will be lucky to sell 150,000 total lifetime,” the source writes in the email.

OUCH! Maybe she can blame this on an anti-Islam video and have the producer of that video locked away for a year or so

Senator Vitter: Hitlery’s State Department Broke Law, Lied About Boko Haram Terror Threat

Senator: Clinton State Dept. Broke Law, Lied About Boko Haram Terror Threat – Washington Free Beacon

A leading senator has charged that Hillary Clinton’s State Department broke the law by intentionally obfuscating and downplaying to Congress the terror threat posed by the Nigerian extremist group Boko Haram, which recently gained international infamy for violently kidnapping more than 200 schoolgirls.

.

.
Sen. David Vitter (R., La.), a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, petitioned Secretary of State John Kerry on Monday to explain why Clinton’s State Department misrepresented and downplayed key information about Boko Haram’s terrorist activities in its annual reports to Congress.

Former Secretary of State Clinton lied to Congress when she said that the State Department lacked the necessary information to designate Boko Haram as a terror group, according to Vitter’s letter, which presents new information about the State Department’s purported efforts to downplay the terror group’s impact.

Clinton’s State Department fought against efforts to designate Boko Haram for nearly two years, a move that likely limited U.S. efforts to confront the group earlier and allowed it to grow in strength.

Vitter charges that officials working under Clinton intentionally manipulated words and mislead Congress in its annual reports to create the impression that Boko Haram posed little to no threat.

Clinton’s State Department “repeatedly stated in the year leading up to the designation that it did not have data available or the necessary understanding to make the determination,” Vitter wrote to Kerry, according to a copy of unreleased letter obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.

However, “recent evidence suggests Secretary Hillary Clinton and the State Departments not only knew of the extent, but also deliberately attempted to obfuscate the issue in order to avoid having to make the designation of Boko Haram as a [Foreign Terrorist Organization], including downplaying the State Department’s own Country Reports on Terrorism (CRT),” Vitter writes.

“Inaccuracies within official documents make it clear that the State Department misled Congress and the American people,” the letter states. “Evidence suggests that there was an internal decision by the Office of Coordinator for Counterterrorism to downplay official, legally required, intelligence data in order to purposefully avoid making the determination.”

Vitter demands in a series of questions that Kerry provide answers as to why the State Department “ignored data and misrepresented its legal requirements to Congress.”

U.S. law stipulates that the State Department provides Congress with “statistical information supported by data” in its annual reports on terrorist activities in foreign countries.

Officials in Clinton’s State Department failed to uphold this mandate, Vitter charges, citing evidence that reports of Boko Haram’s activity by the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) were intentionally ignored.

The NCTC in 2011 “provided the State Department with the statistical information necessary to determine that Boko Haram was engaged in terrorist activity,” Vitter writes. “However, in completing the official annual CRT provided to Congress” at that time “the State Department chose not to include this information.”

New evidence suggests that NCTC information about Boko Haram’s terrorist activities was intentionally left out of the State Department’s reports to Congress, a move that effectively left lawmakers in the dark about the extremist group’s growing influence.

“In multiple cases, where the NCTC clearly labeled and claimed that Boko Haram was engaged in terrorist activity against foreign nations, Secretary Clinton’s office in their own report minimized the attack and separated the issue from Boko Haram,” according to Vitter’s letter.

A 2012 NCTC report, for instance, stated that Africa experienced 978 attacks in 2011, representing an 11.5 percent increase from 2010 levels.

This uptick was attributed “in large part to the more aggressive attack tempo of the Nigeria-based terrorist group Boko Haram,” according to a portion of the NCTC report included in Vitter’s letter.

The NCTC further reported in that year that Boko Haram had conducted a terror attack against Western targets, accounting for “the largest terrorist attack in the country to date,” according to the report.

Yet Clinton’s State Department deemphasized this data and “only chose to include loose evidence” in its own terrorism report to Congress, Vitter states.

“The conflict in Nigeria continued throughout the northern part of the country with hundreds of casualties as indigenous terrorist attacks increased,” the State Department wrote in its report to Congress at the time. “The Nigerian extremist group, Boko Haram, claimed responsibility for some of these attacks.”

Vitter says that this phrasing is proof of the State Department’s bid to create the impression that Boko Haram was a minimal threat.

“It appears that this variation in wording fails to meet the legal requirements based on information it received, and inserts a higher degree of doubt about whether Boko Haram is directly engaged in terrorist activity,” Vitter writes.

The State Department report issued under Clinton “ignores the NCTC labeling Boko Haram as a ‘terrorist group,’ instead suggesting that there may be a loose connection,” Vitter further adds.

“These facts are troubling considering multiple official reports between 2010 and 2012, including the Global Terrorism Database, concluded that Boko Haram was improving their capability to coordinate on an operational level with al Qaeda affiliates, including al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) and al-Shabaab.”

Boko Haram has a long history of terrorism, having detonated a car bomb at a United Nations headquarters in Abuja, an attack that killed 23 and injured 81 others.

The State Department’s own reports from 2009 to 2013 further demonstrate that Boko Haram “steadily increased in deadliness and its connectivity to terrorist organizations,” according to Vitter’s letter.

Boko Haram has even gone on to top al-Shabaab and al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula as the leading regional terrorist group, having killed nearly 4,000 people from 2009 to 2013.

Independent terrorism analysts have determined that Boko Haram and al Qaeda have been linked for more than a decade, and that the extremist group has ties to a least six al Qaeda affiliates, according to a recent report by the Henry Jackson Society (HJS).

There is also evidence that Boko Haram has taken direct orders from al Qaeda, according to HJS.

Yet the annual report to Congress “goes out of its way to downplay the effectiveness or lethality of the group.” Boko Haram’s connections to al Qeada were clear to U.S. authorities from at least 2010 on, according to information from the NCTC.

Following Boko Haram’s successful and deadly attack on the U.N. – an incident the NCTC dubbed “the largest terrorist attack in the country to date – Clinton’s State Department “largely dismissed the events and that data, claiming” in its report to Congress that “no terrorist attacks occurred in the Southern states of Nigeria.”

Independent terrorism analyst Olivier Guitta, research director for HJS, warned in a recent statement that “the international community has been underestimating Boko Haram, even though it is in the top 3 of the bloodiest terrorist groups in the world.”

Vitter is seeking answers as to why the State Department “manipulated words” and misled Congress.

“The State Department’s documents may have failed to explicitly label Boko Haram as a terrorist organization, in almost complete disregard of specific [National Counterterrorism Center] data, but my concern goes deeper to address the internal decision to manipulate words and mislead Congress,” he states in the letter to Kerry.

“The evidence suggests that the office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism may have intentionally exploited the statistical information provided to them by law in an attempt to neglect Boko Haram’s terrorist activity,” he adds.

Vitter has given Kerry until July 10 to respond to his queries about the issue.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

*VIDEO* Trey Gowdy: The Master Mash-Up


.

Four words that will define Hillary Clinton

The Other McCain points out that the answer to Clinton’s infamous “What difference at this point does it make” question is pretty obvious

“This has been a difficult week for the State Department and for our country. We’ve seen the heavy assault on our post in Benghazi that took the lives of those brave men. We’ve seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful internet video that we had nothing do to with. It’s hard for the American people to make sense of that, because it is senseless, and it is totally unacceptable.”
– Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Sept. 14, 2012, while standing over the caskets of the four Americans killed at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya

Hillary lied, Americans died. Those words now define Ms. Clinton don’t they? The quote above is a lie, and was a lie the day it was uttered, and Clinton knew that. Not to be overlooked either is the fact that a man went was locked in the Gray Bar Hotel for a year for making  a video. A video that had absolutely zero to do with what happened in Benghazi. Yet Hillary lied, to cover her ass and Obama’s ass. So, understand this folks. An American makes a video, a video that politicians falsely blame for a terrorist attack. That American then goes to prison for a year so those politicians can cover their asses, and of course so one of those politicians can get reelected. Think about that! Yes Liberals too need to really focus on this. This is agents of your government trampling civil liberties, the Constitution, all to perpetuate a lie to cover their incompetence. Think long and hard about that and then ask yourself what difference that makes! You better think about it because the same person who lied about the video causing the attack they KNEW was a terror attack is very worried that you might start to hear the whole truth. What difference does it make? Apparently Hillary Clinton knows it makes a huge difference. The Other McCain links a politico piece that illustrates how much of  a difference

We cannot forget how Hillary Clinton deliberately lied about the Benghazi attack, blaming it on “an awful internet video,” and spreading that lie everywhere in an attempt to conceal from American people the truth: This was an Islamic terrorist attack, there was advance warning of the danger, warnings which the State Department and the Obama administration failed to take seriously, so that when the attack came — on the 11th anniversary of 9/11 — they were unprepared to protect the lives of the Americans who died there.

We know this, and the American people deserve to know the truth, butTeam Hillary doesn’t want them to learn the whole truth:

Hillary Clinton’s world was so worried about a Republican investigation of the Benghazi attacks, they sent a message to House Democrats: We need backup.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) publicly considered boycotting the panel, an idea that Clinton supporters feared would leave the potential 2016 candidate exposed to the enemy fire of House Republicans.
So Clinton emissaries launched a back channel campaign, contacting several House Democratic lawmakers and aides to say they’d prefer Democrats participate, according to sources familiar with the conversations. Pelosi’s staff said they have not heard from Clinton’s camp.
On Wednesday, Pelosi appointed five Democrats to the committee, giving Democrats another crucial mission in the months ahead of what was already a tough election year: act as Clinton’s first line of defense.

Hillary Lies, Americans Died

When will Liberals retire their stale talking points about guns?

I fully expect the Left to continue their war on guns and on self-defense as well. They are never sated in their quest to control people. And, I fully expect them to continue to make up stats and tell bad-faced lies about guns and gun owners, I mean it is not like they can rely on facts is it? But for God’s sake can they at least make up some new lies rather than beating the same tired, worn out talking points?

Hillary “What difference at this point does it make” Clinton, has spoken on guns.

Hillary Clinton told an audience of mental health professionals on Tuesday that the United States needs to rein in its gun culture or risk a world where insignificant disagreements could lead to shootings.

Asked about the mental health aspects of guns, Clinton said “I think we’ve got to rein in what has become an almost article faith that anybody can have a gun, anywhere, anytime. I don’t believe that is in the best interest of the vast majority of people.”

“We really have got to get our arms around it because at the rate we are going, we are going to have so many people with guns everywhere fully licensed, fully validated,” Clinton said, painting a picture of a country where small annoyances could lead to shootings.

Clinton, whose comments came during the question and answer portion at the end of her appearance, said because “we are living at a time when there is so much external stimulation and some much internal confusion in certain people,” it would be a bad idea to let people “go to bars with guns, let them go to schools with guns, let them go to church with guns.”

But Clinton also gave an olive branch to gun owners, adding “I think you can say that and still support the right of people to own guns.”

Sorry, I almost fell asleep reading that. Good grief, is the Left STILL trying to sell the “Wild West shootouts” and “blood in the streets” lies? There is simply NO, I mean NO statistical data that supports Hillary’s specious claims. Everything, not counting the “facts” the gun grabbers make up of course proves that violent crime goes DOWN when concealed carry laws, or stand your ground laws are passed. Yes, I know, the Left tries to say that homicide rates increase after stand your ground laws are passed. However, they leave out that it is justifiable homicides A.K.A. self-defense cases that go up. There are no Wild West scenarios, and the number of defensive gun uses outnumber the number of criminal uses of guns. Sorry, Hillary, but the “science” here? It really is settled. Now, for goodness sake, stop telling your irresponsible lies, or at the very least be more original and make up new, fresh lies. Yes, we will still blow holes in these new lies, but at least we will have some variety for a change.

*VIDEO* Democrats: Dumb & Dumber & Dumber & Dumber &…


.

Your Daley Gator Anti-Leftist Picture O’ The Day


.

.

Hillary Clinton: The Butcher Of Benghazi (Video)

Hillary Clinton Implicated In Benghazi Murders – Daily Sheeple

.

.
The Butcher of Benghazi, Hillary Rodham Clinton, has blood on her hands: the blood of Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Ty Woods, and Glen Doherty.

This according to a scathing report entitled “Breach of Duty: Hillary Clinton and Catastrophic Failure in Benghazi,” put together by Special Ops OPSEC, the same group that produced the viral documentary Dishonorable Disclosures.

Western Center for Journalism has analyzed this groundbreaking report and found that Hillary Rodham Clinton has indeed been implicated in murder.

Watch our exclusive video for all the details about “The Butcher of Benghazi Hillary Rodham Clinton.”

.

.
Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.
————————————————————————————————————————
.

Related video:

.

.

*VIDEO* Judge Jeanine Pirro Verbally Bitchslaps Hillary Clinton Over Benghazi Cover-Up


.
H/T Weasel Zippers

.

If you want the right opinions first………

Read THIS BLOG! Donald Douglas. a blogging legend, in my view, links this piece from IBD

The attempt to rehabilitate Hillary Clinton begins as the New York Times revives the long-ago debunked “video clip” excuse for the well-planned Benghazi massacre while denying documented al-Qaida involvement.

These days it’s all the news that is fit to be made up that graces the pages of the once-proud Gray Lady that has morphed from a self-proclaimed “newspaper of record” to the house organ for the Obama administration.

The latest example is a piece on the Benghazi terrorist attack of Sept. 10, 2010, titled, “A Deadly Mix in Benghazi.” It resembles the infamous White House talking points — on steroids.

Great points, and a very good column you should read, no doubt. But, consider that on this blog, I wrote this yesterday

OH, you mean you did not hear the news? Well actually, they have not fully endorsed her, yet, but that is what this story is all about Absolving Miss What Difference Does it Make. See it WAS all about that video after all. 

I also was the first to call this Operation Cover Hillary’s Ass 2016! Of course, someone will go on Fox, or somewhere else and use that, or very similar wording and they will be praised as insightful, a genius, or be described as on the cutting edge. And if I see Karl Rove, with his whiteboard, or Dick Morris saying that on TV, my head will explode. But, we know who said it first, ME! So, really, it should be me on Fox aweing Megyn Kelly, or Andrea Tarantos, Andrea-Tantaros-handcuffswho can restrain me anytime

 

 

 

 

 

or maybe Kimberly Guilfoyle. Or maybe, just maybe I would go on MSNBS, and wow Tamron Hall with my political insight, and she would come out of the closet, no not THAT closet, and announce her infatuation with Conservative guys, namely me.

That Daley Gator guy is kinda hot

That Daley Gator guy is kinda hot

Now, will this happen? Of course not! But I can have dreams can’t I?

RINO Jeb Bush To Present Liberty Medal To Hillary (What Difference Does It Make) Clinton

Jeb Bush To Present Liberty Medal To Hillary Clinton – Philadelphia Inquirer

Hillary Rodham Clinton will receive the 2013 Liberty Medal at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia.

.

Jeb Bush, the chairman of the Constitution Center, will present the award to Clinton at a ceremony scheduled for Sept. 10.

Both Clinton and Bush are potential contenders in the 2016 presidential elections, for opposing parties. But in a statement, the GOP’s Bush only accentuated the positive.

“Former Secretary Clinton has dedicated her life to serving and engaging people across the world in democracy,” said Bush, the Republican former Governor of Florida, son of a former president and brother of another. “These efforts as a citizen, an activist, and a leader have earned Secretary Clinton this year’s Liberty Medal.”

Tickets for the general public will be made available in August. Details will be released next month, a Constitution Center spokeswoman said.

The Liberty Medal was established in 1988 to commemorate the bicentennial of the U.S. Constitution. Previous recipients include former Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton, U2 frontman Bono, filmmaker Steven Spielberg and Nelson Mandela.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.
——————————————————————————————————————————–
.

Related video:

.

.

Benghazi Creeps Closer To Hillary Clinton

Benghazi Creeps Closer To Hillary Clinton – Investors Business Daily

Scandal: The decision to place U.S. personnel in Benghazi with substandard security was made at the highest levels of the State Department by officials who have so far escaped blame over the Sept. 11 attack.

.

An indication that the Orwellian-named Accountability Review Board (ARB) investigating the terrorist attack on our diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, was an effort not to assign responsibility for the disaster but to enable those responsible to escape blame is the fact that ARB never bothered to interview the likes of Undersecretary of State Patrick Kennedy.

ARB co-chair Thomas Pickering told CBS’ Bob Schieffer on “Face the Nation” in May that he and his colleagues had ample opportunity to question Secretary of State Hillary Clinton herself but concluded that conducting an interview with her was not necessary. “We knew where the responsibility rested,” he said.

In defending the ARB’s findings on Benghazi, Pickering, who co-authored its report with former Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Mike Mullen, had no use for whistle-blowers like Gregory Hicks, the No. 2 official in Libya at the time of the strike that killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans. Hicks had told the House Government Oversight Committee he believed the ARB report “let people off the hook.”

“They’ve tried to point a finger at people more senior than where we found the decisions were made,” Pickering said, citing specifically Clinton and Undersecretary for Management Patrick Kennedy.

His mind was made up, and he didn’t want to be confused with the facts such as the testimony of Mark Thompson, deputy coordinator for operations in the State Department’s counterterrorism bureau. Thompson told the House committee that Secretary Clinton attempted to cut the bureau off from communications about the attack.

“(The ARB) has decided to fix responsibility on the assistant secretary level and below,” testified Eric Nordstrom, who was regional security officer. “And the message to my colleagues is that if you’re above a certain level, no matter what your decision is, no one’s going to question it.” The fix was in.

The disgraceful cover-up afterwards is rivaled by the disgraceful lack of security provided to the mission, which was set up to be a permanent diplomatic post at which Clinton would arrive to celebrate the triumph of the Obama administration’s Middle East policy.

Ambassador Stevens was in Benghazi on Sept. 11, 2012, the day he died in the terrorist attack, because Clinton ordered him there. Hicks said Stephens wanted to have the Benghazi complex upgraded to a permanent constituent post so Clinton could make this announcement in her planned visit to Libya before the end of 2012.

According to a Fox News review of recent congressional testimony and internal State Department memos, Undersecretary Patrick Kennedy, the man not interviewed by ARB, signed off on an internal memo nine months before the attack that green-lighted the Benghazi operation complete with its lack of security.

The December 2011 memo from Jeffrey Feltman, then-assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern Affairs (NEA), referred to Benghazi not as a future diplomatic post but only as a “consulate.” This exempted it from rigid mandatory security standards required for facilities like embassies.

Nordstrom said the Benghazi operation never met the rigid standards set out by the Overseas Security Policy Board, or OSPB, which according to the State Department website is “an interagency body created to assist the secretary” in carrying out security obligations under a 1986 law. Apparently Patrick Kennedy was fine with that.

“I find it very hard to believe that he (Kennedy) would sign this memo without having talked to Secretary Clinton or at least Deputy Secretary (William) Burns,” former ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton told Fox News after examining the December 2011 memo.

Maybe somebody like Pickering and Mullins should have asked them.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Hillary Clinton Fired From Watergate Committee For Fraud, Ethics Violations

Hillary Clinton Fired From Watergate Committee For Fraud, Ethics Violations – Fire Andrea Mitchell

.

Did you know Hillary Clinton was a member of the impeachment inquiry staff in Washington, D.C.? Clinton was advising the House Committee on the Judiciary during the Watergate scandal back in 1974. I didn’t either until I read her Wikipedia entry. I also discovered another rather interesting story. Back in 2008 when Clinton was running against Obama in the Democrat primary the Digital Journal ran a revealing story. The story says Hillary Clinton was fired from the committee staff. Jerry Zeifman, supervised Hillary Clinton during the Watergate impeachment inquiry. He refused to give her a letter of recommendation because of her lies and unethical behavior. Clinton obtained a position on the committee staff through her political patronage of her former Yale law school professor Burke Marshall and Chappaquiddick Senator Ted Kennedy. Jerry Zeifman says Hillary Clinton was unethical and a liar (as if we didn’t already know that.) He also described Hillary Clinton as a dishonest lawyer. Finally, Zeifman says Hillary Clinton conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality. Sound familiar? Like Benghazi maybe? Zeifman had this reaction after Hillary Clinton’s phony tears at a campaign rally in 2008:

My own reaction was of regret that, when I terminated her employment on the Nixon impeachment staff, I had not reported her unethical practices to the appropriate bar associations.

Digital Journal also had this on Hillary Clinton:

engaged in a seemingly implausible scheme to deny Richard Nixon the right to counsel during the investigation by stealing Judiciary Committee files on the only precedent case that could have stonewalled their plot and drafting a legal brief that, according to Mr. Ziefman, “was so fraudulent and ridiculous Hillary would have been disbarred if she had submitted it to a judge.”

Isn’t it amazing and ironic? Hillary Clinton who is involved in the worst government cover-up since Watergate was on the Watergate investigation panel as a young pup back in ’74. I guess history does repeat itself.

.
Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

The Left reveals it’s Benghazi defense strategy

A strongly worded letter? No Instead, they are just going to close their eyes tighter and chant “How dare you”

Robert Stacy McCain @rsmccain

“This has been a difficult week for the State Department and for our country. We’ve seen the heavy assault on our post in Benghazi that took the lives of those brave men. We’ve seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful internet video that we had nothing do to with. It’s hard for the American people to make sense of that, because it is senseless, and it is totally unacceptable.”
– Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Sept. 14, 2012, while standing over the caskets of the four Americans killed at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya

Jeff Goldstein cites the important testimony that “a State Department official emailed the Libyan government on September 12 that the consulate attack was in fact a terrorist operation — specifically identifying Ansar al-Sharia in the email.” But why bother with facts? What difference, at this point, does it make?

Quite obviously, it makes a very important difference to Democrats and the media (but I repeat myself) in their tireless efforts to convince Americans that Obama’s foreign policy is working, and especially to persuade us that the fine public servants at the top levels of the State Department did nothing wrong in the Benghazi affair.

When you point out the obvious facts — that the “Arab Spring” was a bad idea, that everybody in the administration lied through their teeth about Benghazi, and that the major media are enthusiastic volunteers in a partisan P.R. effort to assist in the cover-up — liberals go into fake indignation mode: How dare you?

The pathetic nature of the Democratic Party is astounding, but, they are what they are. Morality? Patriotism? Justice? Putting country first and finding out the truth? How dare we expect such upright principles from the Democrats!

 

Hillary Clinton Sought End-Run Around Counterterrorism Bureau On Night Of Benghazi Attack

Clinton Sought End-Run Around Counterterrorism Bureau On Night Of Benghazi Attack, Witness Will Say – Fox News

On the night of Sept. 11, as the Obama administration scrambled to respond to the Benghazi terror attacks, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and a key aide effectively tried to cut the department’s own counterterrorism bureau out of the chain of reporting and decision-making, according to a “whistle-blower” witness from that bureau who will soon testify to the charge before Congress, Fox News has learned.

.

That witness is Mark I. Thompson, a former Marine and now the deputy coordinator for operations in the agency’s counterterrorism bureau. Sources tell Fox News Thompson will level the allegation against Clinton during testimony on Wednesday before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, chaired by Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif.

Fox News has also learned that another official from the counterterrorism bureau – independently of Thompson – voiced the same complaint about Clinton and Under Secretary for Management Patrick Kennedy to trusted national security colleagues back in October.

Extremists linked to Al Qaeda stormed the U.S. Consulate and a nearby annex on Sept. 11, in a heavily armed and well-coordinated eight-hour assault that killed the U.S. ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens, and three other Americans.

Thompson considers himself a whistle-blower whose account was suppressed by the official investigative panel that Clinton convened to review the episode, the Accountability Review Board (ARB). Thompson’s lawyer, Joseph diGenova, a former U.S. attorney, has further alleged that his client has been subjected to threats and intimidation by as-yet-unnamed superiors at State, in advance of his cooperation with Congress.

Sources close to the congressional investigation who have been briefed on what Thompson will testify tell Fox News the veteran counterterrorism official concluded on Sept. 11 that Clinton and Kennedy tried to cut the counterterrorism bureau out of the loop as they and other Obama administration officials weighed how to respond to – and characterize – the Benghazi attacks.

“You should have seen what (Clinton) tried to do to us that night,” the second official in State’s counterterrorism bureau told colleagues back in October. Those comments would appear to be corroborated by Thompson’s forthcoming testimony.

State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki called the counterterrorism officials’ allegation “100 percent false.” A spokesman for Clinton said tersely that the charge is not true.

Daniel Benjamin, who ran the department’s Counterterrorism Bureau at the time, also put out a statement Monday morning strongly denying the charges.

“I ran the bureau then, and I can say now with certainty, as the former Coordinator for Counterterrorism, that this charge is simply untrue,” he said. “Though I was out of the country on official travel at the time of the attack, I was in frequent contact with the Department. At no time did I feel that the Bureau was in any way being left out of deliberations that it should have been part of.”

He went on to call his bureau a “central participant in the interagency discussion about the longer-term response to Benghazi.” He said “at no time was the Bureau sidelined or otherwise kept from carrying out its tasks.”

Thompson’s attorney, diGenova, would not comment for this article.

Documents from the State Department, the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Security Council, first published in the May 13 edition of “The Weekly Standard,” showed that senior officials from those agencies decided within days of the attacks to delete all references to Al Qaeda’s known involvement in them from “talking points” being prepared for those administration officers being sent out to discuss the attacks publicly.

Those talking points – and indeed, the statements of all senior Obama administration officials who commented publicly on Benghazi during the early days after the attacks – sought instead to depict the Americans’ deaths as the result of a spontaneous protest that went awry. The administration later acknowledged that there had been no such protest, as evidence mounted that Al Qaeda-linked terrorists had participated in the attacks. The latter conclusion had figured prominently in the earliest CIA drafts of the talking points, but was stricken by an ad hoc group of senior officials controlling the drafting process. Among those involved in prodding the deletions, the documents published by “The Weekly Standard” show, was State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland, who wrote at one point that the revisions were not sufficient to satisfy “my building’s leadership.”

The allegations of the two counterterrorism officials stand to return the former secretary of state to the center of the Benghazi story. Widely regarded as a leading potential candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2016, Clinton has insisted she was not privy to decisions made by underlings about the inadequate security for the U.S. installations in Benghazi that were made in the run-up to the attacks. And she has portrayed her role – once the attacks became known in Washington – as that of a determined fact-finder who worked with colleagues to fashion the best possible response to the crisis.

Clinton testified about Benghazi for the first and only time in January of this year, shortly before leaving office. She had long delayed her testimony, at first because she cited the need for the ARB to complete its report, and then because she suffered a series of untimely health problems that included a stomach virus, a concussion sustained during a fall at home, and a blood clot near her brain, from which she has since recovered. However, Clinton was never interviewed by the ARB she convened.

Fox News disclosed last week that the conduct of the ARB is itself now under review by the State Department’s Office of Inspector General. A department spokesman said the OIG probe is examining all prior ARBs, not just the one established after Benghazi.

The two U.S. officials – former Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mike Mullen and former Ambassador Tom Pickering – who oversaw the internal review of the attacks defended their report.

“From the beginning of the ARB process, we had unfettered access to everyone and everything including all the documentation we needed. Our marching orders were to get to the bottom of what happened, and that’s what we did,” they said in a statement Monday.

The counterterrorism officials, however, concluded that Clinton and Kennedy were immediately wary of the attacks being portrayed as acts of terrorism, and accordingly worked to prevent the counterterrorism bureau from having a role in the department’s early decision-making relating to them.

Also appearing before the oversight committee on Wednesday will be Gregory N. Hicks, the deputy chief of mission at the U.S. Embassy in Libya at the time of the Benghazi terrorist attacks. Like Thompson, Hicks is a career State Department official who considers himself a Benghazi whistle-blower. His attorney, Victoria Toensing, a former chief counsel to the Senate Intelligence Committee, has charged that Hicks, too, has faced threats of reprisal from unnamed superiors at State. (Toensing and diGenova, who are representing their respective clients pro bono, are married.)

Portions of the forthcoming testimony of Hicks – who was one of the last people to speak to Stevens, and who upon the ambassador’s death became the senior U.S. diplomat in Libya — were made public by Rep. Issa during an appearance on the CBS News program “Face the Nation” on Sunday.

Hicks told the committee that he and his colleagues on the ground in Libya that night knew instantly that Benghazi was a terrorist attack, and that he was astonished that no one drafting the administration’s talking points consulted with him before finalizing them, or before U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice delivered them on the Sunday talk shows of Sept. 16.

Hicks was interviewed by the ARB but Thompson was not, sources close to the committee’s investigation tell Fox News.

.
Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

*VIDEO* Rush Limbaugh: Hillary Clinton’s Benghazi Testimony Was “Flat Out Bullshit”


.