ALL of Hillary Clinton’s State Department Accomplishments in ONE Graphic!!

Share

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

Hat/Tip to SooperMexican.

If you ever needed to answer the question, “just what accomplishments make Hillary think she should become president?” the investigative team at the SooperMexy blog have compiled hours of research into this one graphic. Enjoy and share: 

hillary-clinton-answering-cell-SMALL

 

.

.

.

 

Share

Irony Alert: The One Email She Didn’t Erase Announces She’s Running For President

Share

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

hillary and her lost emails
Irony Alert: After Erasing Potentially Thousands Of Emails As Secretary Of State, Hillary Clinton Announces She’s Running For President Via…Email

Hat/Tip to Nickarama at Weasel Zippers.

So she FINALLY produces an email, and it’s the one which says she’s running for POTUS.

Go figure.

.

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.


But not everybody is pleased by this announcement…

.


.


.

.

.

Share

Trey Gowdy: Hillary’s Server Or Hillary’s Testimony

Share

trey gowdy benghazi 002

 

Hat/Tip to Newsmax.

Trey Gowdy is a smart, cagey prosecutor and he won’t make a move until he has ALL his ducks in a row. The latest two ducks he’s lining up are either Hillary’s Email Server or Hillary, herself in the hot seat.

hillary clinton 002If former secretary of State Hillary Clinton refuses to turn over her server to an independent party, the House Select Committee on Benghazi will ask her to testify about it, committee chairman Trey Gowdy told Fox News.

Appearing Monday on Fox News Channel’s “The Kelly File,” Gowdy said he plans to give Clinton the opportunity to turn her personal email server over to a neutral independent arbiter, such as a federal judge, an archivist, or an inspector general.

And he’s not the only one after her, either.

Clinton has come under fire for using a personal email server and email address for all her communications as secretary of state. Critics say it is impossible to know whether she has turned over all her work emails since she owns the server where they are housed.

“It’s not just my committee. It’s House Armed Services, it’s Foreign Affairs, it’s FOIA [Freedom of Information Act] requests,” Gowdy said. “These are public records, and if they’re not personal, if they’re public, then she’s not entitled to be the sole arbiter of who gets what when.”

Gowdy said if Clinton doesn’t turn over the server,

“then we will invite Mrs. Clinton to come see the committee twice and not once. And the first the first time will be to discuss her email arrangement.”

.

.

.

Share

New Documents Obtained Prove Hillary “What Difference Does It Make” Clinton Lied About Benghazi

Share
"What difference does it make?"
“What difference does it make?”

Hat/Tip to Tom Fitton at Doug Ross @ Journal.

Looks like Hillary’s chickens just may be coming home to roost…

I’ve always believed that the Benghazi cover-up was about two presidential campaigns: Barack Obama’s reelection campaign and Hillary Clinton’s nascent presidential campaign.

Why else would Hillary Clinton personally send out lies about Benghazi within hours, and then keep on pushing these lies until the truth could no longer be ignored. The truth about an attack by an al Qaeda group that killed our ambassador and three other brave Americans in the days before Obama’s reelection would not only have put Obama at risk of losing, but also would have potentially dashed the hopes of his successor-in-waiting, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

The desperation by Obama, Clinton, and their political teams must have been potent. It was so potent that they – rather than admitting to the Islamist conflagration they caused in Libya by ousting and killing Gadhafi – preferred to ignore pleas for increased security from Ambassador Stevens; to abandon him and his colleagues to rampaging terrorists; refuse to follow up with force against those who attacked us; and to lie to the American people about the nature of the attack.

Rather than admit that it was a planned attack by a terrorist group in league with al Qaeda, the Obama/Clinton machine knowingly put out the lie that the killings were the result of a spontaneous demonstration in response to an obscure Internet video supposedly offensive to radical Islamists. The message: don’t blame us – blame those who offend Islamists (conservatives, Republicans, etc.). Indeed, rather than sending our military to eliminate the enemy in Libya, the Obama administration arrested the poor sap who made the offending video.

As they say on late night infomercials, “But wait! It gets better!”

Strong stuff you might think. But the most recent documents forced out of the State Department will make you think I’m being too kind to the Benghazi betrayers controlling the Executive Branch.

On February 11, 2015, JW struck smoking-gun gold in another cache of documents we forced out of the State Department. The documents show that top aides for then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, including her then-chief of staff Cheryl Mills, knew from the outset that the Benghazi mission compound was under attack by armed assailants tied to a terrorist group. The documents we’ve extracted from the Obama administration only through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the State Department (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State ((No. 1:14-cv-01511).

Unsurprisingly, the documents make no reference to a spontaneous demonstration or Internet video, except in an official statement issued by Hillary Clinton.

The JW lawsuit that uncovered this material focused on Mrs. Clinton’s involvement in the Benghazi scandal:

Any and all records concerning, regarding, or related to notes, updates, or reports created in response to the September 11, 2012 attack on the U.S, Consulate in Benghazi, Libya. This request includes but is not limited to, notes, taken by then Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton or employees of the Office of the Secretary of State during the attack and its immediate aftermath.

Mrs. Clinton had said she took notes on Benghazi for her recent book but suggested no one could see them. She isn’t above the law. Congress is asleep, the media is a cheerleader, so hence, our lawsuit.

We haven’t yet gotten Hillary’s notes, but the chain of internal emails we did get are extraordinary and track the events surrounding the terrorist attack in real time.

In chronological order:

On September 11, 2012, at 4:07 PM, Maria Sand (who was then a Special Assistant to Mrs. Clinton) forwarded an email from the State Department’s Operations Center entitled “U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi is Under Attack (SBU) [Sensitive But Unclassified]” to Cheryl Mills (then-Chief of Staff), Jacob Sullivan (then-Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy), Joseph McManus (then-Hillary Clinton’s Executive Assistant), and a list of other Special Assistants in the Secretary’s office:

The Regional Security Officer reports the diplomatic mission is under attack. Tripoli reports approximately 20 armed people fired shots; explosions have been heard as well. Ambassador Stevens, who is currently in Benghazi, and four COM [Chief of Mission] personnel are in the compound safe haven. The 17th of February militia is providing security support.

This email was sent about 30 minutes after the terrorist attack began!

On September 11, 2012, 4:38 PM, State Department Foreign Service Officer Lawrence Randolph forwarded Mills, Sullivan and McManus an email from Scott Bultrowicz, who was the former director of the Diplomatic Security Service (ousted following review of the attack), with the subject line, “Attack on Benghazi 09112012?:

DSCC received a phone call from [REDACTED] in Benghazi, Libya initially stating that 15 armed individuals were attacking the compound and trying to gain entrance. The Ambassador is present in Benghazi and currently is barricaded within the compound. There are no injuries at this time and it is unknown what the intent of the attackers is. At approximately 1600 DSCC received word from Benghazi that individuals had entered the compound. At 1614 RSO advised the Libyans had set fire to various buildings in the area, possibly the building that houses the Ambassador [REDACTED] is responding and taking fire.

Nearly seven hours later, at 12:04 am, on September 12, Randolph sends an email with the subject line “FW: Update 3: Benghazi Shelter Location Also Under Attack” to Mills, Sullivan, and McManus that has several updates about the Benghazi attack:

I just called Ops and they said the DS command center is reporting that the compound is under attack again. I am about to reach out to the DS Command Center.

This email also contains a chain of other, earlier email updates:

September 11, 2012 11:57 PM email: “(SBU) DS Command reports the current shelter location for COM personnel in Benghazi is under mortar fire. There are reports of injuries to COM staff.”

September 11, 2012 6:06 PM (Subject: “Update 2: Ansar al-Sharia Claims Responsibility for Benghazi Attack (SBU): “(SBU) Embassy Tripoli reports the group claimed responsibility on Facebook and Twitter and call for an attack on Embassy Tripoli”

September 11, 2012, 4:54 PM: “Embassy Tripoli reports the firing at the U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi has stopped and the compound has been cleared. A response team is on site to locate COM personnel.”

The DOS emails reveal the first official confirmation of the death of Ambassador Stevens. On September 12, 2012, 3:22 AM, Senior Watch Officer Andrew Veprek forwarded an email to numerous State Department officials, which was later forwarded to Cheryl Mills and Joseph McManus, with the subject line “Death of Ambassador Stevens in Benghazi”:

Embassy Tripoli confirms the death of Ambassador John C. (Chris) Stevens in Benghazi. His body has been recovered and is at the airport in Benghazi.

Two hours later, Joseph McManus forwards the news about Ambassador Stevens’ death to officials in the State Department Legislative Affairs office with instructions not to “forward to anyone at this point.”

Despite her three top staff members being informed that a terrorist group had claimed credit for the attack, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, issued an official statement, also produced to Judicial Watch, claiming the assault may have been in “a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet.”

Cheryl Mills asks that the State Department stop answering press inquiries at 12:11 am on September 12, despite the ongoing questions about “Chris’ whereabouts.” In an email to State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland, Jacob Kennedy, and Phillipe Reines (then-Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Strategic Communications and Senior Communications Advisor), Mills writes:

Can we stop answering emails for the night Toria b/c now the first one [Hillary Clinton’s “inflammatory material posted on the Internet” statement] is hanging out there.

Earlier in the chain of emails, Nuland told Mills, Sullivan, and Patrick Kennedy (Under Secretary of State for Management) that she “ignored” a question about Ambassador Steven’s status and whereabouts from a CBS News reporter.

Think about this: Cheryl Mills, Hillary’s top aide, would rather go to bed and let hang out there the lie that Hillary Clinton put out about the attack than tell reporters the truth about the attack, which by that time had escalated to include mortar fire.

Another top State Department official is eager to promote a statement from Rabbi David Saperstein, then-Director of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, a liberal group. The September 2012 statement condemns “the video that apparently spurred these incidents. It was clearly crafted to provoke, offend, and to evoke outrage.” Michael Posner, then-Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, forwarded the statement on September 12, 2012, to Wendy Sherman, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, and Jacob Sherman with the note:

This is an excellent statement – our goal should be to get the Conference of Presidents, the ADL etc. to follow suit and use similar language.

(President Obama nominated the left-wing Rabbi Saperstein to be Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom in July 2014. The U.S. Senate confirmed him in December 2014. Posner, by the way, is another far left activist installed at State by Obama.)

Also included in the documents are foreign press reports establishing the cause of Ambassador Chris Steven’s deathas being from asphyxiation. According to the reports, doctors attending Stevens said he could have been saved had he arrived at the hospital earlier.

The Obama administration has blacked out reactions from White House and top State Department officials to news stories published on September 14, 2012. One of the stories quoted a visitor who criticized the lack of security at the Benghazi Special Mission Compound and another headlined, “America ‘was warned of attack and did nothing.’” What was the reaction of key Obama officials to this truth-telling about the media. They don’t want you to know. If it were helpful, it would have been released to us!

Other emails list well over 20 invited participants in a “SVTC” (secure video teleconference). The invited participants for the September 14, 2012, early morning call include senior White House, CIA, and State Department political appointees. Details about that call, which likely documents the cover-up operation on Benghazi, haven’t been produced to Judicial Watch.

These emails leave no doubt that Hillary Clinton’s closest advisers knew the truth about the Benghazi attack from almost the moment it happened. And it is inescapable that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton knowingly lied when she planted the false story about “inflammatory material being posted on the Internet.”

The contempt for the public’s right to know is evidenced not only in these documents, but also in the fact that we had to file a lawsuit in federal court to obtain them. The Obama gang’s cover-up continues to unravel, despite its unlawful secrecy and continued slow-rolling of information.

Congress, if it ever decides to do its job, cannot act soon enough to put Hillary Clinton, Cheryl Mills, and every other official in these emails under oath.

Islamic terrorists connected to al Qaeda attacked the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi on the evening of September 11, 2012. U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and U.S. Foreign Service Information Management Officer Sean Smith were both killed. Just a few hours later, a second terrorist strike targeted a different compound about one mile away. Two CIA contractors, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, were killed and 10 others were injured in the second attack.

The families of those four men deserve truth and accountability. So do those who suffered injuries and others haunted by the attacks.

So as Congress is set to acquiesce in Obama’s deadly nullification of our nation’s immigration laws…

So as the mainstream media spends all of its time covering presidential wanna-be’s with all the depth of entertainment media coverage of the Oscars…

So as “Rome burns,” your Judicial Watch will, alone it seems, continue with the hard work of conducting government oversight in a city otherwise bereft of it. The Benghazi Four deserve no less.

We expect more Benghazi documents over the next few months, so stayed tuned for more disclosures.

About Judicial Watch:

Judicial Watch, Inc., a conservative, non-partisan educational foundation, promotes transparency, accountability and integrity in government, politics and the law. Through its educational endeavors, Judicial Watch advocates high standards of ethics and morality in our nation’s public life and seeks to ensure that political and judicial officials do not abuse the powers entrusted to them by the American people. Judicial Watch fulfills its educational mission through litigation, investigations, and public outreach. Visit: www.judicialwatch.org

.

.

.

Share

Newly Revealed Pentagon Documents: 9/11/2012 Was Known As A Terrorist Attack Before, During And After Lives Were Lost

Share
Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens; information management officer Sean Smith; and two security officers who were former Navy SEALs, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods.
Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens; Information Management Officer Sean Smith; and two CIA Contractors who were former Navy SEALs, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods.

Hat/Tip to Doug Ross @ Journal.

We’ve all known it was a lie, the video. It was a lie made up and agreed upon between Obama and Hillary. The end. Period. Enough said.

Now documents have come to light that prove it.

Finally.

Scandal: Heavily redacted documents show a military response had been drafted in answer to the Benghazi terrorist attack by a group supporting “an Islamic state” in Libya. It also showed the attack wasn’t inflamed by a video.

It’s taken Judicial Watch two years to obtain from the most transparent administration in history the 486 pages of documents pertaining to the military response to the Sept. 11, 2012, terrorist attack on our Benghazi diplomatic mission. They confirm what we have said repeatedly, that the Benghazi tale spun by President Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was indeed a lie agreed upon.

Despite heavy redaction, they show that the real “JV team” — a term applied by Obama to the deadly Islamic State — resides in the White House. The papers reveal, for instance, that at one point the military relied on a photo from a Twitter post to determine the status of Ambassador Christopher Stevens, who was killed with Foreign Service Information Management Officer Sean Smith in the first of two attacks.

Several hours later — hours during which a rescue or support attempt arguably could have been made — terrorists killed CIA contractors and former Navy SEALs Ty Woods and Glen Doherty.

The documents confirm the administration lied in insisting the attacks were nothing more than a spontaneous protest over a video offensive to Muslims — protests that escalated to the point participants spontaneously pulled out their mortars and rocket-propelled grenades.

“The DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency) terrorism threat level for Libya is significant,” said one formerly withheld email sent before the attack. “The DOS (Department of State) residential criminal threat level for Libya is high and the non-residential criminal threat level is high. The political violence level threat is critical.”

The documents describe Libya as hardly the poster child for the Arab Spring, and echo warnings sent to State by Stevens himself. He was aware of an attack on a convoy carrying the British ambassador to Libya and a June 2012 attack where an improvised explosive device blew a hole in the Benghazi consulate wall. Nowhere in the 486 pages is mention of or concern for the effects of a video.

On Aug. 8, 2012, Stevens sent a two-page cable to the State Department entitled “The Guns of August: Security in Eastern Libya” and noted a dangerous “security vacuum” in and around Benghazi, as well as the presence of terrorist training camps. He was ignored.

The documents reveal that, early on the day after the attack, the Pentagon received intelligence briefing slides detailing that the June 6, 2012, attack was tied to al-Qaida-linked terrorists seeking an Islamic state in Libya and who threatened to attack U.S. interests there. It also said the June 6 attack “came in response to the 5 June (2012) drone strike on senior al-Qaida leader Abu Yahya al-libi.”

That Sept. 11 was a terrorist attack was known before, during and after it took place.

“I personally … think the (U.S. Africa Command) very quickly got to the point that this was not a demonstration, this was a terrorist attack,” Gen. Carter Ham, head of the Command, testified behind closed doors in June 2013 before the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.

And that, Ham said, was the “nature of the conversation” he had with Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Martin Dempsey moments before a 30-minute meeting with Obama prior to the president resting up for his fundraising Las Vegas trip.

A Sept. 13 draft cable — “U.S. Africa Command Request for Forces” — sought an “immediate” response from the Joint Chiefs for “additional forces” to protect “vital naval and national assets” under the operation name “Jukebox Lotus.” This is not something done in response to a spontaneous protest gone wrong.

Unfortunately, it came too late for any support or rescue attempt. Fortunately, the truth is never too late.

Read the full story here.

.

.

.

Share

Benghazi Security Team Forcefully Disagrees With New House Intel Report: We WERE Told To “Stand Down”

Share

 photo benghazisecurityteamsaystheyWEREtoldtostanddown_zps83f251ed.jpg

Hat/Tip to Nickarama at WeaselZippers.

Despite what the White House spin machine says, these brave men who were actually there, on the ground in Benghazi that fateful night contend that they WERE told to stand down.

Via PJ Media:

Saturday on C-SPAN’s Book TV, CIA Benghazi annex security team members Kris Paronto and Mark Geist answered questions about a report released Friday by the House Intelligence Committee on the 9/11 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi in 2012. The two former CIA contractors pushed back forcefully against parts of the the committee’s conclusions about the night that Ambassador Chris Stevens, U.S. Foreign Service Information Management Officer Sean Smith, and CIA contractors Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty were killed in Benghazi.

The report by the U.S. House of Representatives Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI), chaired by Republican Rep. Mike Rogers, concluded that “the CIA ensured sufficient security for CIA facilities in Benghazi” and that “appropriate U.S. personnel made reasonable tactical decisions that night.” The committee “found no evidence that there was either a stand down order or a denial of available air support.” The report, according to the House Intelligence Committee, is meant to serve as the “definitive House statement on the Intelligence Community’s activities before, during, and after the tragic events that caused the deaths of four brave Americans” so that the American public can separate “facts from the swirl of rumors and unsubstantiated allegations.”

Kris “Tanto” Paronto, co-author of the book 13 Hours: The Inside Account of What Really Happened in Benghazi, reacted to the report on Twitter Friday night and Saturday morning, prior to the C-SPAN interview:

 

 


Read the full story here.

.

.

.

Share

Full Interview: Sharyl Attkisson, Former CBS Reporter Says Obama Has An Enemies’ List

Share

 photo SharylAttkisson001_zpsd268ec6c.jpg

Hat/Tip to Paul Bond at The Hollywood Reporter.

Investigative Journalist, Sharyl Attkisson left CBS after her bosses lost their appetite for any story that would hurt, or even show the Obama Administration in a bad light. In this interview, she talks about an unknown government agency hacking into her computer, her bosses choice to bury her stories, their penchant for labeling any analyst they didn’t agree with as Conservative Analysts and all others as just Analysts, the trend from the MSM’s desire to air stories negative to Republican administrations to their fear of doing so to the Obama administration, and finally of the fact that Barack Obama does indeed have an Enemies’ List.

Here is her full interview with THR.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

THR reached out for a response from CBS News, but the organization declined to comment.

Who did you tell at CBS that your computers were hacked?

The first person I spoke to was Washington bureau chief Chris Isham.

Did he believe you?

He appeared to.

Did CBS care? Did they do anything about it?

God, you know, there’s a lot of people there. He seemed to care. He hired a separate computer forensics firm to look at the computers. They, too, agreed that there had been highly sophisticated remote intrusion of my computers. They decided to dig deeper and embark upon a process that spanned a number of months, during which time the situation with the Associated Press and the government spying on Fox News reporter James Rosen was disclosed, as well as Edward Snowden’s NSA information.

Did they ever find out who hacked your computers and spied on you?

I don’t believe their computer forensics team concluded who spied on me.

Did they ask anybody in the Obama administration if they were the culprits?

Not to my knowledge. Executives discussed with me that they assumed that was the case. And we discussed how to proceed with that information and what we could do about it.

So what did you do about it?

It seemed to fall off the radar after the forensics report was delivered to CBS. And so I hired a — I have a legal and forensics team that began work.

Did they conclude anything yet?

Yes. Her work is still very much active, but they have told me they have evidence of highly sophisticated remote intrusions into my personal and work computers by someone using software proprietary to a government agency.

CBS executives suspect that the government hacked your computer, and CBS computers, but there’s been no accountability? CBS just dropped the matter?

As far as I know, although what they told me was they wanted to heavily pursue it and find out who was responsible. I discovered on my own they have a computer security specialist working for CBS. … But nobody ever questioned me, came to my house, checked the security of my system, asked me for more information, or followed up with me.

Do you believe that people working for the president of the United States hacked your computer and spied on you?

The way you phrase the question makes me want to couch it a little bit. I have been told by two computer forensics experts that a highly sophisticated entity using abilities outside non-government resources, using software proprietary either to the DIA, CIA, FBI or NSA made repeat remote intrusions into both my computers over a period of time. And we have evidence of a government computer connection into my computer system.

And why do you think they would target you as opposed to more partisan voices, like Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck?

The question carries the assumption that they haven’t targeted others. I kind of assume I’m on a list. I don’t think I’m the only one, along with James Rosen and the Associated Press, that garnered special attention. There’s probably a list of people.

So an enemies list, like in the Nixon administration?

I’ve been told there is such a list, yes.

And who do you suspect is on that list?

Well, there’s an internal email that indicated reporters who were working with leakers in government agencies or perceived as enemies of the White House are being targeted. So I think that’s probably accurate — anybody that they perceive as harmful to their agenda or working with leakers and whistle-blowers, which I did a lot of.

Do you have sources who told you the names on that list? Is Rush Limbaugh on that list, for example?

Another reporter told me — I can’t remember who — that they thought he was on some sort of target list, but I don’t know that to be the case. I have someone who told me the existence of a list but not the names on it.

You’re being accused of being a partisan right-winger. Have you reported negative stories about conservatives?

Most of my reporting has not been political in nature. Some of the stories that were politicized, I don’t consider political stories, but they were made out to be by people who obviously didn’t want them reported, and I would put Fast and Furious and Benghazi in that category. But other stories include the one I won an investigative Emmy Award for last year, which was a series of stories from the time I went undercover to investigate freshmen Republican fundraising. I also did a story that MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow complimented in a seven-minute-long segment, exposing Congressman Steven Buyer, a Republican from Indiana, and his possible and allegedly fraudulent charity, which was followed shortly thereafter by his resignation from Congress.

Did your colleagues give you grief about your negative stories on Obama?

Not my reporter colleagues.

But you have said your bosses kind of shut down a lot of your reporting?

Some of them did. It was very complicated. All of them encouraged my reporting initially, and then as time went on some of them encouraged it and some of them discouraged it.

Who were the ones discouraging it?

Nobody ever discouraged it to my face, they just would not run the stories or would have other stories they wanted to put on every time the stories were offered. That was CBS News with Scott Pelley and his executive producer Pat Shevlin primarily, but there may have been others.

You’ve said they did this because of liberal bias?

I’m not sure I’ve ever said that. But I think there was a complex list of reasons why a lot of stories did and didn’t make it on the air the last couple of years. But in a general sense, I noticed a tendency to avoid stories that would draw pushback form people they didn’t want to have pushback from, whether it’s corporations, advertisers or politicians.

Has CBS ever cared about pushback from politicians before, or only under this administration?

I don’t know how these same people would have acted under a different administration. They came in shortly after the Obama administration [began].

Do you think CBS was unlikely to run negative stories about President George W. Bush for fear of pushback?

They might have been just as likely to be fearful of stories that drew controversy or pushback from corporate entities, charities, politicians, whatever the special interest might be.

Since when has CBS ever been afraid to air controversial political stories? It ran those memos claiming Bush was trying to avoid the Vietnam War. That wasn’t controversial?

CBS is hundreds of people, and they’ve changed over the years. It’s not a monolithic organization that has one viewpoint, and that’s why for everything you try to put into a box there are exceptions. For example, they assigned me to cover Benghazi, that wasn’t my idea. And they were very enthusiastic about the story for a period of time. Why they changed on that, I tried to figure out many times and I can’t say; I can only say what my experiences were.

You must have a theory as to why, right?

They simply didn’t want stories on any controversies, whether that involved corporations, advertisers, charities or other special interests. They were not impossible to get on the air, but very difficult. So we just concluded that there was not the same appetite as there had been in the past.

You’re acting like it was a monetary decision on the part of CBS, like it didn’t want to risk its advertising. But these were government stories we’re talking about.

No, I’m trying to explain to you it wasn’t just government stories, although that’s what the media tended to focus on.

OK then, name the corporations that wanted to kill your stories.

I don’t think any corporations killed my stories. I said CBS had a tendency, in the last couple years especially, to appear to want to avoid controversies or stories that they felt would get pushback from certain corporations and politicians and special interests and charities.

Can you tell me the names of these corporations, charities and politicians?

I hate to tick them off because I feel like the story should be told in some context for legal reasons, but I think that you can pull some ideas from the book.

Does CBS go after liberal policies that are failing with as much gusto as they do conservative policies that are failing?

Well, whether something’s failing is a matter of somebody’s opinion. But I would say, as Lisa Myers has observed, as USA Today has observed, the media in general has been less enthusiastic about government accountability under the Obama administration. And I concur with those observations.

Why is that the case?

In my view, trying to avoid the pushback, and the fallout, and the headaches that come with doing stories on whatever the topic may be that the powers-that-be don’t like.

So, in journalism today, it works to bully the reporters and they’ll lay off? “Speak truth to power” — that saying from the 1960s — that doesn’t apply to journalism anymore?

Reporters want to, as you say, “speak truth to power,” but it’s harder to get those types of stories past the gatekeepers.

So what good is CBS News if it’s just going to bow down to the bullies who tell them to shut up?

Those were your words, but I think they do a great job on some controversies and investigations. 60 Minutes still does some great work. So I’m not saying there aren’t very good journalists and work being done, but on the whole, as many other journalists have observed recently and publicly, the media is not as good at holding the powers that be accountable, for whatever reason.

And that reason has nothing to do with political bias?

It’s a complex set of factors involving politics, relationships with corporations and advertisers and, at times, just the idea that they’d rather not have the headache of doing a story that they have to defend.

You seem to be going way out of your way not to label the media biased. But in your book you talk about how one of your bosses insisted on labeling conservative analysts but not labeling the liberal ones, and if they really didn’t like an analyst, they’d label him or her “right-wing.” So if that’s not bias, what is it?

I didn’t say that nobody is ever biased. I’m not trying to be cagey. It’s not one factor at play … I never told CBS when I wanted to leave that I thought anybody was liberally biased. I never argued that point. People kind of drew that conclusion because it served a certain narrative on both sides. It served the narrative of conservatives who were happy to feel like someone was spilling the family secret and it served the narrative of liberals who didn’t like some of my reporting and thought it could be explained away if I were a right-wing conservative. So everybody sort of adopted that line, and that’s something that I never said.

So whose rule was it at CBS that analysts who were conservative be labeled as such and analysts who are liberal not be labeled?

I’m not going to name her. And it was some time ago, but she did say after I brought it up, she’d think about it, and she agreed that what I brought up was a good point and she changed — at least with me — what she’d been doing.

And who at CBS got mad at you for going on Laura Ingraham’s radio show because Ingraham is right wing?

I don’t want to say her name, either.

It sounds like you criticize Obama officials by name but you won’t say names when you’re criticizing CBS. Why the double standard?

I said a lot of names in the book, and I have my reasons why. … I described it in the book as I wished to describe it.

Did anybody at CBS get mad when reporters went on liberal outlets, like MSNBC?

I can only speak for myself. I saw other reporters go on conservative and liberal outlets and I never heard that they received blowback. So I don’t know if it was just me. But in my experience, they did tell me to not go on the Laura Ingraham Show.

Just the Laura Ingraham Show or all conservative shows?

That’s a good question. At the time it was just, “Don’t ever go on her show again.” And then they denied other interview requests on both liberal and conservative outlets after that — a lot, but not all the time.

Are there any celebrities mentioned in your book?

Sheryl Crow and Sinbad. I traveled with them on a trip to Bosnia with Hillary Clinton. They were entertaining the troops. But first lady Hillary Clinton and her daughter were on a work trip and I was there covering it. I mention them briefly in light of the fact that I did the story that exposed that Mrs. Clinton’s account that we’d been fired at by snipers was not true. I mentioned that Sinbad and Sheryl Crow were on the plane with us.

Was there any pushback on your Hillary-Bosnia report?

No. That sort of highlights the changes that had occurred because that was a different executive producer who, as far as I know, is actually friendly with the Clintons but nonetheless was very gung-ho on the story because he was — like most journalists — able to get outside of his own friendships and belief systems and just be a newsman.

Who at CBS did you tender your resignation to?

The first time I tried to leave, a year before I left, I had my agent call CBS president David Rhodes.

What was your interaction with David Rhodes like?

Well, for most of my tenure at CBS he was very supportive. We met privately a lot about how he wanted my stories to get exposure.

When did that change?

As I tried to leave, there were some tense times. But it ended up cordial.

Why did you want to leave?

The bottom line is, the last couple of years it was clear for me that there was nothing meaningful left for me to do at CBS, and I just wanted to move on. They had plenty of talented reporters but, for what I did, investigative and original reporting, there was no appetite for that.

What are your politics personally?

I don’t talk about my politics, but I would say I’m like a lot of Americans. I’m mixed. I can honestly see two valid sides of a debate. That’s not to say I don’t have positions and thoughts on things, of course I do, but I don’t let those things get in the way of my work.

The primary issues in your book are Benghazi, Fast and Furious, the alleged green energy scandals and Obamacare. Which of those four needs further reporting?

Wow. There’s a great deal of reporting to be done on all of them. I can’t pick one. At CBS, I would have continued on all of them, if I was able to.

It sounds like you’ve been telling me that journalists at CBS who don’t toe a certain line have something to fear there. Is that the case at other networks, too?

I’m not sure we have anything to fear. It’s just that if you want to keep working there, you may not be doing what you want to do. In my case it was not being willing to do what they wanted me to do, or disagreeing with it so much that I just would rather move on. I don’t think reporters are fearful, per se, but I think they will tell you at the other networks that it’s getting more difficult to get original and hard-nosed stories on, especially if they don’t fit with the narrative that the gatekeepers in New York are trying to portray.

You were accused by some at CBS of agenda-driven news stories against Obama. Has anyone at CBS ever accused a reporter of agenda-driven stories against Sarah Palin, or George W. Bush, or anyone prominent on the right?

When I did stories that clearly were not positive toward Republicans, I was never accused of being a crazy liberal or having an agenda. That only happened when I did stories that were perceived as being negative toward Democrats.

Did your executive producer, Patricia Shevlin, accuse you of not being supportive enough of green energy because of your stories about taxpayer money given to Solyndra before it went bankrupt?

She never told me that — that was her answer to another executive who raised the question: “Shouldn’t we be doing these stories on evening news?”

Why is that anecdote about Shevlin significant?

She is a well-known liberal ideologue who let that get in the way of her decisions and judgment. Whether people will say that to you or not, that was the consensus. That was discussed sometimes daily at CBS.

You also said somebody hacked your TV. How would you know? Why would someone want to hack someone’s TV?

I didn’t say that. What I said was the anomalies that were occurring in my house all seemed to be associated with my FiOS line. … I think that the work that they were doing to get into my computer system may have interfered with the other systems in the house.

The progressive watchdog group Media Matters for America is leading the charge against you, it seems.

Media Matters has acknowledged targeting me, yes. Not with a computer intrusion, just with trying to discredit the stories I did as much as possible.

Do you think they were paid to do so?

They said they weren’t, but the question has certainly crossed my mind.

Do you know of any occasions where Media Matters was given money earmarked to targeting somebody?

David Folkenflik of NPR told me they were paid to target Rush Limbaugh. He may have misspoken on that, because someone told me it may have been Glenn Beck. He gave me two instances in which they were paid to target. He also said that they were paid to target Fox News. I’m not sure if that’s correct. It was just another reporter relaying that information to me.

(David Folkenflik did not respond to a request for comment. Media Matters president Bradley Beychok told THR: “Media Matters has never taken a dime to target Sharyl Attkisson.”).

Do you think Media Matters has libeled you?

That’s a good question. I haven’t had a legal review of what they’ve said. I actually read little to zero of what they write. They have definitely said many, many, false things. But I’m not sure it qualifies as libel under the law.

They’re a media watchdog. They tell the truth about what the media is reporting, right?

I don’t think they have an obligation to, no. Anyone can say they’re a media watchdog and then give their opinions … most people understand it’s a propaganda blog. They are very close to the Obama administration, Hillary Clinton and Democratic interests.

What does the press think of Media Matters?

Like anybody that reaches out to us, we may take under consideration an idea that they propose. But I never get asked about their conservative counterparts, such as Media Research Center or Accuracy in Media. In my experience, no one ever takes their criticism as if it is something legitimate to be answered, but when Media Matters says something, many people in the media almost treat them as a neutral journalism organization.

Is that biased?

That probably is the result of an unintentional bias.

As we’re talking, I got an email from Media Matters that says a video you released of your computer being hacked is probably just a stuck backspace key.

It’s what I would call a video anecdote, something that happened along the way. It has nothing to do with the forensic evidence and the analysis. It’s just something interesting, a punctuation mark of things that were happening. And, certainly, I expect Media Matters to say that the backspace key was held down.

What story were you working on when your backspace key started operating by itself?

I was preparing questions for my interview with Ambassador Thomas Pickering about Benghazi and the Accountability Review Board.

So of all the stories you did that were seen as negative against Obama, Benghazi was the one that really irritated them?

I think green energy got under their skin first, and the remote intrusions into my computer predated Benghazi.

From what you told me thus far, it sounds like you’re accusing CBS of cowardice more than liberal bias. Is that correct?

I haven’t used that word, ever. CBS is hundreds of people. It’s not a monolithic organization. That’s the hard part about trying to make a statement or draw conclusions. I would use the word “fearful,” rather than “cowardice.” Some people in the decision-making process, not necessarily reporters at the ground level, but some of those deciding what goes on television have become very fearful of the sponsors and would just prefer to avoid conflict and controversy, which means you’re not going to do a lot of original investigative reporting.

You mentioned your former boss David Rhodes. His brother is Ben Rhodes, a security adviser to the president. Is there at least an appearance of a conflict of interest there when he’s telling you to lay off Benghazi while his brother works for the president?

David didn’t tell me to lay off Benghazi, and I don’t really have an opinion of his relationship with his brother, and how that might have affected things.

Did anyone tell you to lay off Benghazi, or did they just stop using your stories on TV?

They started not using my stories. I don’t know what goes on in the decision-making process, but in general the shows’ producers and managing editors and so on would be the ones that decide what goes on the broadcasts and what doesn’t. I certainly had people joining me at CBS and pushing for stories to get on television that didn’t get on. And they were stopped, as far as I was concerned, somewhere in New York.

What reasons did they give you for not airing your stories?

They would just say — and they didn’t talk to me personally, this was to senior producers — they would just say things like, “There is no time on the show for it tonight,” “That’s a great story but maybe we’ll get to it tomorrow,” “Not today, but tell us when there are other developments, we’ll consider it again.”

Why would the administration blame the murders in Benghazi on a YouTube video if that was untrue?

Some of the information the administration is withholding from public release involves a meeting or meetings that occurred in which this was presumably discussed. So we can only wonder, but the body of evidence that’s come out in the two years since would lead a reasonable person to conclude they wanted to steer the public’s direction away from the idea that this was definitely an act of terror, technically on U.S. soil if it was U.S. property overseas. It occurred on the president’s watch, very close to an election, at a time when he had claimed Al Qaeda was on the run.

But that reason sounds fairly pathetic and unworthy of such a huge lie. Doesn’t it?

From whose viewpoint? I mean, it’s apparently important enough for them to deflect opinion, and I’m not sure if that is indeed why they did it, that’s just the best reason most of us can come up with, looking at the evidence that has come out since. Maybe there is a better reason why they did it, I don’t know. I have a feeling we won’t ever have the full story.

What news network do you think you’ll land with next?

I certainly haven’t decided I’ll ever work at another network or even necessarily work full-time again. When I decided to leave CBS, the discussion I had with my husband was, I have to be prepared to walk out and not work anywhere ever again, and we were fine with that.

Have you had offers?

Yes, but I don’t want to discuss them.

Media Matters and others say that you’re pushing a media-is-biased narrative to curry favor with conservatives.

Anyone who knows much of anything about me knows that I don’t curry favor with people. Period.

Being targeted, allegedly, by the Obama administration, and your stories allegedly being shunned at CBS — were those ultimately good things for you?

I don’t think those were pleasant things, but where I sit today I would say, “Fine, I’m exactly where I ought to be.” And I will tell you, before all this stuff happened, I did hope to, and thought I would, work the rest of my career at CBS doing as much as I had been doing over most of the last 20 years. It didn’t work out that way, but I’m not sorrowful over it. … I think there is a cultural change in journalism that’s going on — a turn away from the kind of reporting that just holds the powers-that-be accountable. It’s not just a CBS thing.

The major news networks are just afraid of the powerful all of a sudden?

Well, when you put it that way, it makes it sound silly, and that’s what I’ve written about in the book. I don’t think there was a sudden switch.

Nobody was saying that the media was afraid of George W. Bush, now all of a sudden they are afraid of Barack Obama?

There were times when people said that — inside CBS, after Rathergate.

Were there some depressing days for you at CBS toward the end?

I was very disheartened when my producer and I would have great stories, and in some cases, whistleblowers we convinced to go out on a limb and tell their story, only to then have to go back to them and say nobody’s interested. So, we’ve had to do that more times in the past few years than I’ve had to do in the previous 30.

An Obama spokesman called you “unreasonable.” Are you?

I’m probably one of the most reasonable reporters out there. But their definition of unreasonable is when they answer a question, if it doesn’t make sense or if it contradicts other facts, I don’t just accept it and go away.

What haven’t I asked you about that you think is important to mention?

A couple people have told me that CBS News has started a whisper campaign to say that I’m paranoid, crazy and a liar?

Are you paranoid?

I’d like to think not. It’s just a good word they use to discredit and “controversialize” reporters and stories they don’t like.

Assuming this whisper campaign against you is true, who is orchestrating it?

I was told that Chris Isham, the bureau chief in Washington, was a part of it.

.

.

.

Share

Trey Gowdy Opens New Benghazi Hearings Vows to Pursue Truth “No Matter Where It Takes Us”

Share

 photo benghazicommittee101_zps5a95e48c.jpg
 

Hat/Tip to Fox News Insider.

Here is a rough transcript of South Carolina Rep. Trey Gowdy’s opening comments on the first day of hearings of the House Special Committee on Benghazi, followed by a video of those remarks.

Contrary to his reputation for theatrics and hard nosed questioning of witnesses, Gowdy marked the first day of Benghazi hearings by concentrating on oversight of State Department security protocols, or more precisely: “Implementation of the Accountability Review Board Recommendations.”

A little over two years ago, four Americans were killed serving our country in Benghazi, Libya. Two were killed when a facility emblematic of our country was set on fire. Two were killed because they dared to fight back and defend themselves and others.   

Sean Smith, Chris Stevens, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty represented us. They represented our country and our values. We sent them to do that. They were killed in an attack rooted in the animus some people hold toward us, simply because we are us.

To the family, friends, and loved ones of those killed, we can never adequately express our condolences and gratitude. As you have helped us understand, the four killed were more than just pictures on a TV screen. They were sons, husbands, fathers, brothers, and friends.  And they were our fellow Americans.

I remain hopeful there are still things left in our country that can transcend politics. I remain convinced our fellow citizens deserve all of the facts of what happened before, during, and after the attacks in Benghazi and they deserve an investigative process worthy of the memory of those who died and worthy of the trust of our fellow citizens.  

Some question the need for this committee. I respect your right to disagree, but the mark of a professional, indeed the mark of character, is to do a good job even if you do not think the task should have been assigned in the first place. Given the gravity of the issues at hand, I am willing to risk answering the same question twice rather than risk not answering it once. 

I am willing to reconsider previously held beliefs in light of new, additional, complimentary or contradictory evidence. I am willing to approach anew witnesses previously interviewed in light of the real possibility that additional questions may be warranted. As we are keenly aware, all documents responsive to congressional requests have not been produced.

Moreover, there are witnesses with information or access to information with whom no committee of Congress has spoken. I am optimistic the vast and varied backgrounds of our colleagues can be put to great use on behalf of our fellow citizens. The House of Representatives constituted this committee to find all of the facts, and I intend to do so fully and in a manner worthy of the people we serve.

Our fellow citizens have legitimate and high expectations:

  1. They expect us to protect and defend those we send to represent us,
  2. They expect us to move heaven and earth to help those representing us who are in harm’s way;
  3. They expect government to tell the truth in the aftermath of a tragedy;
  4. They expect we will not continue to make the same mistakes over and over again.

Which leads to this hearing. 

Benghazi was not the first time our diplomatic facilities and people have been attacked. The barracks in Beirut, our facilities in Tanzania and Kenya are a few that come to mind amid too many others. And after those attacks, groups came together and made recommendations on how to prevent future attacks. That is the process seemingly followed. 

An attack takes place, we commission a group to study how to make sure it doesn’t happen again, we pronounce it is time to move on and yet it happens again.  So to those who believe it is time to move on, that there is nothing left to discover, that all questions have been asked and answered, that we have learned the lessons to be learned— we have heard that before.   And yet the attacks and the tragedies keep coming.

It is stunning to see the similarities in the recommendations made decades ago and the recommendations made after Benghazi.  If you doubt that, compare the recommendations made nearly 25 years ago with those made after Benghazi. We do not suffer from a lack of recommendations. We do not suffer from a lack of boards, commissions and blue ribbon panels. We suffer from a lack of implementing and enacting those recommendations. That must end. 

So it is appropriate to review the recommendations of the most recent ARB and Rep. Adam Schiff is to be credited for suggesting we do so. It is also fair for us to ask why have we not done a better job implementing recommendations made decades ago. 

Why does it take an attack on our people and facilities for us to make recommendations? Why not evaluate the threat before the attack? Why not anticipate rather than react?

The people we work for yearn to see the right thing done, for the right reasons, and in the right way.  They want to know that something can rise above the din of politics. They want to trust the institutions of government. So to fulfill the duties owed to those we serve and in honor of those who were killed perhaps we can be what those four brave men were: neither Republican nor Democrat. We can just be Americans in pursuit of the facts, the truth, and justice no matter where that journey takes us.   

 

.

.

.

Share

Gowdy on Benghazi Investigation: “…we are going to do it methodically, professionally.”

Share

trey gowdy benghazi

Hat/Tip to Conservative Tribune.

As we all know, Congressman and former Federal Prosecutor, Trey Gowdy has been appointed Chair of a select committee to investigate the events at Benghazi that led to the deaths of four American citizens, including our Ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens.

But true to his undefeated streak as a prosecutor, he is taking his time and not rushing into anything.

After Congress returns from their August recess, Gowdy intends to begin holding hearings with the Benghazi Select Committee, most likely in early September.

Gowdy has already promised to subpoena Hillary Clinton and compel her to testify, although it remains unclear if she will cooperate, as she has intimated that she won’t turn over her personal notes regarding Benghazi.

He’s also not being rushed or deterred by the upcoming mid-term elections.

Trey Gowdy was recently asked in an ABC interview if he would be done with his Benghazi Committee before the midterm elections take place, which Gowdy laughed off, according to The Hill.

“No. Heavens no,” said Gowdy, “I have decided that I would rather be right than first. So we are going to do it methodically, professionally.”

And even though the left will accuse him of grandstanding to score cheap political points, Gowdy isn’t having any of it.

Gowdy said the first public hearing will focus mostly on the State Department’s Accountability Review Board investigation of the Benghazi, and if their recommendations have been taken to heart and followed by the State Department.

He said there may be other public hearings in the future, but he prefers to do his work in private depositions, feeling he can get more done without the grandstanding for cameras and limited time frame that come with public hearings.

“I can get more information in a five-hour deposition than I can [in] five minutes of listening to a colleague asking questions in a committee hearing,” he said, adding: “My view of public hearings — if there is a factual discrepancy, then the jury or our fellow citizens need to hear both sides, and they can determine where the greater weight or credibility is. But if there is a consensus on a point, there really is not any reason to litigate that in public.”

Share

Border Crisis, ISIS, IRS, VA, Benghazi, NSA, Fast & Furious and more = Half Month Vacay for Obama

Share

Cartoon-Fiddling-Around-ALG-600

Hat/Tip to Conservative Tribune.

Now the Dems have their jaws on the floor over this one as well…

Even the most staunch among President Barack Obama’s supporters cannot deny that the White House is plagued by scandals and overrun by crises. The border with Mexico and violence in the middle east occupy many recent headlines, but Obama’s problems do not stop there.

This administration is also contending with a spate of legal reversals from the Supreme Court, a sluggish economy, the collapse of the VA healthcare system, and increasingly damning revelations regarding the IRS scandal, just to name a few.

So what should our Impertinent Narcissist-in-Chief do?

We turn to Keith Koffler at White House Dossier:

The Obamas will depart Washington on Saturday, August 9th and head for Martha’s Vineyard, staying in a $12 million vacation home until Sunday, August 24th, reports the Martha’s Vineyard Times.

The president will return to the town Chilmark, the site of last year’s Obama sojourn, where he will rest up “in a secluded house off North Road that overlooks the north shore and Vineyard Sound,” the Times reported.

According the the newspaper: “The seven-bedroom, nine-bath, 8,100-square-foot house, sits on a 10-acre lot and is assessed at more than $12 million. It features 17 rooms in total, expansive water views of Vineyard Sound, an infinity pool and hot tub, and a dual tennis-basketball court.”

The president’s extended vacation on The Vineyard comes after a 16-day stop in Hawaii over Christmas, adding up to a total of more than 31 days of vacation in less than a year, not counting weekend getaways.

I’m beyond calling this jerk (THAT’S RIGHT, I SAID IT!) tone deaf when it comes to his vacationing. It is painfully obvious that he just doesn’t give a damn.

He doesn’t care about the Vets Dying waiting for the benefits they earned.

He doesn’t care about the lost emails of Lois Lerner.

He doesn’t care about the Illegal Alien Children pouring across our southern border.

He doesn’t care about Benghazi, the NSA, IRS, the National Debt or any other ‘phony’ scandal that his administration has produced.

That President Obama considers this an opportune time for a vacation is laughable. That he will do so in lavish style while so much of the country wallows in an economic morass is insulting. That he does so at taxpayer expense is offensive. No wonder Representative Trey Gowdy has called for defunding Obama’s time off.

On the other hand, much of this president’s action has been self-interested, unconstitutional, or incompetent. A two-week break from his presence in the White House might not be so bad.

Rather than complain, perhaps conservatives should be raising money to fund a 30-month vacation for President Obama…and whatever cabinet members he might choose to accompany him.

Share

Obama STILL Calling Benghazi a ‘Phony Scandal’

Share
President Obama angry about 'Phony Scandals'
President Obama angry about ‘Phony Scandals’

Hat/Tip to WeaselZippers.

In a recent fundraiser (what else does this President do?), Obama made some comments that clearly show his disdain for the folks who got killed in Libya in the attack on our Ambassador’s compound in Benghazi.

Four dead Americans and an obvious coverup and this jackass is calling it a “phony scandal.”

Via The Hill:

President Obama charged that his Republican opponents had “nothing to offer except cynicism and fear and frustration” during a fundraiser Thursday in Minnesota.

The fundraiser capped off a day Obama spent with Rebekah Erler, a working mother who wrote the president to detail her financial struggle.

“It moved me,” Obama said of the letter, adding that he only went into politics to help people like her.

Obama said he remembered what it felt like to be struggling to figure out “how you lead a good life and raise your kids, not looking to get wildly wealthy… trying to make ends meet.”

That’s what we should be talking about every day in Washington,” he said. “We talk about everything else. .. We talk about phony scandals. We talk about Benghazi. and we talk about polls and we talk about the tea party and we talk about the latest controversy... We don’t talk about her.”

Share

Breaking News: First Benghazi Suspect In US Custody

Share
Ahmed Abu Khattala
Ahmed Abu Khattala

Hat/Tip to The Washington Post.

It was has been called a “clean” operation, Ahmed Abu Khattala came home after a hard day terrorizing, murdering and raping to find and Army Delta Force team waiting to give him a free ride to an ocean cruise back to the United States.

Ahmed Abu Khattala had returned home Sunday night after a day of militia skirmishes in Benghazi when U.S. military commandos swarmed his residence south of the waterfront city and took him captive, quickly moving him out of Libya to a U.S. warship.

“He was isolated,” a U.S. official said. “It was pretty clean.”

One of the suspected ringleaders of the 2012 terrorist attacks in Benghazi that killed four Americans, Abu Khattala is the first of the alleged perpetrators to be apprehended. He now awaits a transfer to the United States and a federal trial in the District.

U.S. officials said the joint Special Operations and FBI mission had been planned for months and was approved by President Obama on Friday. The Pentagon said that there were no civilian or other casualties and that all involved U.S. personnel had safely left Libya.

As can be expected, the Democrats want to give him the same rights as a US citizen so he can lawyer up and try to game the system, while the Republicans want him detained in GITMO until he can be tried by the military.

Response to the capture quickly divided along partisan lines, with Republicans demanding that Abu Khattala be thoroughly interrogated at sea and then brought to the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba for a military trial. Democrats argued, along with the administration, that he belongs in criminal court, where convictions against numerous terrorism defendants have been won in recent years.

“The administration’s policy is clear on this issue,” said National Security Council spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden. “We have not added a single person to the [Guantanamo] population since President Obama took office, and we have had substantial success delivering swift justice to terrorists throughout our federal court system.”

Hayden said that Abu Khattala would be “debriefed for intelligence purposes,” as has been done in previous, similar cases. Somali citizen Ahmed Abdulkadir Warsame, picked up off the Somalia coast in 2011, was held at sea and interrogated for months before being advised of his rights to silence and to counsel. Once brought to this country, he pleaded guilty in federal court to a range of charges, including providing material support for al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.

Facing charges filed by the FBI, Khattala is eligible for the death penalty if found guilty.

A three-count criminal complaint filed by the FBI last July and unsealed in federal court in the District on Tuesday charges Abu Khattala with “killing a person in the course of an attack on a federal facility involving use of a firearm” on Sept. 11 and 12, 2012, providing and conspiring to “provide material support to terrorists resulting in a death” and possessing and using a firearm during a crime of violence.

Conviction on the felony counts could make him eligible for the death penalty or life imprisonment. In a statement, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said the Justice Department could bring more charges against Abu Khattala.

At least a dozen others are known to have been charged in sealed criminal complaints in connection with the Benghazi attacks, although none of the others have been apprehended.

Khattala had been imprisoned for many years by the Gaddafi regime. Seems he was too radical even for Muammar al-Gaddafi.

The State Department designated Abu Khattala a terrorist in January, calling him a “senior leader” of the Benghazi branch of the militant organization Ansar al-Sharia, a group that arose after the 2011 fall of the Libyan regime of Moammar Gaddafi.

Ansar al-Sharia was also designated a terrorist organization and held specifically responsible for the Sept. 11, 2012, assault on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi that left U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and State Department information management officer Sean Smith dead.

Two CIA contractors, Tyrone S. Woods and Glen Doherty, were killed early the next day in a mortar attack at a nearby CIA annex where the attackers moved after overrunning the diplomatic compound.

Believed to be in his 40s, Abu Khattala was imprisoned for many years for his Islamist views by the Gaddafi regime. After Gaddafi was ousted in 2011 by Libyan fighters aided by U.S. and NATO warplanes and subsequently killed by militiamen, Abu Khattala helped form Ansar al-Sharia..

Abu Khattala’s residence is a relatively modest, two-story house in the neighborhood of al-Lathi in southern Benghazi, with no armed guards posted outside.

 Read the full story here.

 

Share

There Was A Crooked Man…

Share

kerry-speaks

“I make absolutely no apologies…” – Barack Obama, Democrat

“There was a crooked man, and he walked a crooked mile.
He found a crooked sixpence upon a crooked stile.
He bought a crooked cat, which caught a crooked mouse,
And they all lived together in a little crooked house.” – English Nursery Rhyme

“Impeachment is a political solution to a criminal problem…” – Ben Shapiro

never-heard-of-it

According to a recent study, rats are capable of feeling regret about their own actions. This sets them apart from Democrats, who never seem to feel sorry about much of anything.

 John Kerry, the Norman Bates of the diplomatic corps, for example, has likened concerns about Barack Obama’s release of five jihadi killers back into gen-pop to an Italian sausage, while his predecessor tours the talk-show circuit, shilling her new book and inventing ever more excuses for her Benghazi dereliction, including a creative attempt to blame the late Ambassador Chris Stevens for his own murder.

The White House, like a broken washer, is stuck on an interminable spin cycle while its dirty laundry piles up faster than the bedsheets in a three-dollar brothel.   As the Yankee sage Yogi Berra might say, Barack Obama spends 90% of his time devising ways to ruin the country and the other 50% looking for someone else to blame it on.

dirty-laundry1

Ben Shapiro accurately observes,

[…] in many cases, Obama’s exercise of authoritarian power is criminal. His executive branch is responsible for violations of the Arms Export Control Act in shipping weapons to Syria, the Espionage Act in Libya, and IRS law with regard to the targeting of conservative groups. His executive branch is guilty of involuntary manslaughter in Benghazi and in the Fast and Furious scandal, and bribery in its allocation of waivers in Obamacare and tax dollars in its stimulus spending. His administration is guilty of obstruction of justice and witness tampering … when it comes to presidential lawbreaking, the sitting president could literally strangle someone to death on national television and meet with no consequences.

Former Louisiana governor Edwin Edwards, a Democrat, once boasted that “The only way I can lose is if I’m found in bed with a dead girl or a live boy.”  In Obama’s transformed America, neither circumstance seems to matter anymore.

Share

Hillary, do you regret saying, “What difference does it make?” Answer: “No!”

Share
"What difference does it make?"
“What difference does it make?”

Hat/Tip to WeaselZippers.

Hillary Clinton Says She Doesn’t Regret “What Difference Does It Make” Remark On Benghazi…

I don’t know Hillary, maybe you ought to ask the families of these four people what difference it makes…

Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens; information management officer Sean Smith; and two security officers who were former Navy SEALs, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods.
Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens; information management officer Sean Smith; and two security officers who were former Navy SEALs, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods.

She’s already trying to position herself to counter this in 2016.

.

Share

Report: Hillary Clinton is Scared to Death of Trey Gowdy’s Investigation

Share

Hat/Tip to the Conservative Tribune.

hillary scared

Usually the Democrats just rely on their standard playbook to stay a step ahead of the Republican establishment. But once in a while the old guard in the GOP throws them a curve. That’s what they’ve done now, and the name of that curve ball is Trey Gowdy.

Ever since the news broke that the House decided to appoint Rep. Trey Gowdy as the head of a special committee to probe deeper into the Benghazi cover up, liberal Democrats have been shaking in their boots.

And with good reason…

Select Commitee 001 Trey GowdyLiberals have good reason to be afraid, as Gowdy has a reputation for digging deep and hard to get to the truth, not to mention he’s never lost a case as a prosecutor.

If there are secrets being kept by the White House about Benghazi, and there most certainly are, Rep. Gowdy is the man who will find them.

It would seem that, of all the Democrats, Hillary is the most worried.

While the entire Obama administration is fretting over this investigation, it seems no one is as terrified of Trey Gowdy as Hillary Clinton, and she has good reason to be concerned. Gowdy has already stated that he is coming after Clinton, with the full might of subpoena power.

Apparently this has Clinton so concerned that her team has begged for Democrats to do everything in their power to protect her from  the coming onslaught.

via American Thinker:

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.

“Republicans are making it clear they plan to use the power of the Benghazi Select Committee to continue to politicize the tragedy that occurred in Benghazi, which is exactly why Democratic participation in the committee is vital,” a Democrat close to Clinton world said. “Inevitably, witnesses ranging from Secretary Clinton to Secretary [John] Kerry will be subpoenaed to testify, and the Democrats appointed to the committee will help restore a level of sanity to the hearings, which would otherwise exist solely as a political witch hunt.”

 Read the full story here.

Share

Bombshell: New Source Tells Allen West of Weapons Scheme Behind Benghazi Cover Up

Share

Hat/Tip allenbwest.com .

Former Representative Allen West (R) reveals the truth behind the lies and obfuscations by the Obama administration regarding the Benghazi attacks on 9/11/’12. He comes by this via a new source, which he explains below:

allen west guardian of the republicToday as I returned from Detroit, I had a moment that I truly felt was God sent, as I don’t believe in coincidences. It happened on one of my flights, and it was two hours I will never forget.

I was seated beside someone who personally knew one of the men who was there on the roof in Benghazi. This person was excited to share with me the “ground truth” of what happened September 11, 2012.

The level of detail that this source was aware of assured Col. West that this person had inside knowledge of the events of that night.

My seat mate drew schematics to orient me to the “time and spacing” and the direction of the attack. I learned about the repeated orders to the men at the CIA annex to stand down and do nothing — thank God two of them, Glenn Doherty and Ty Woods, lived up to their code of honor and ran to the sound of the guns, resulting in their loss of life — but the preservation of life for others, their fellow Americans.

Glen-Doherty-and-Tyrone-Woods-300x180
Glen Doherty & Tyrone Woods

I learned about the proximity of the staging area of the attack to the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, and the attackers were indeed Ansar al-Sharia, a group affiliated with al-Qaida. I came to understand why Ambassador Chris Stevens was there in the first place and that he had in fact requested better security but was denied – the question is, by whom? And I learned that the Martyrs of 17 February Brigade were in charge of security and were the ones who opened the gates, then fled.

And lastly, he learned why it has taken so long for the details of that night to come to light.

I learned there are those who are being threatened with their pensions being cut off if they come forth to speak.

And I learned, as I presumed, that there was a covert weapons scheme going on in Libya, Benghazi. We had been supplying radical Islamists with weapons against Libyan President Moammar Gadhafi, effectively supplying the enemy and destabilizing that country. And it seems that there was a CIA weapons buy-back program, the aim of which was to ship the retrieved weapons out of Libya through Turkey, and to the Islamist forces in Syria.

Read his entire article, here.

Share