quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

FR
And please ignore the fact that she denied bieng out of touch with what was going on while claiming that she never saw any of the requests for more security people. So she relied on things like the safe room to provide all the protection she thought they needed. Incompitence x1000

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

FR

Interesting, leftish take on the hearing: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/trey-gowdy-just-elected-hillary-clinton-president-20151023

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/10/23/benghazi-flashback-when-fox-news-reported-that/206391

But, I dont see anything in the WSJ thats damning or appears to contradict anything or muddy anything. Her statement, for those who can read:

“Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet,”

Some is kind of a funny word, and it has a meaning in English, and perhaps thats why we use it, to convey a meaning...

Like Faux Nuze:

Some people say that...............(insert some nutsucker propaganda baseless of any fact)

Here is her statement.


Clinton: Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet. The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear: There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind. (email)

Clinton: Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior, along with the protest that took place at our Embassy in Cairo yesterday, as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet. America’s commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear — there is no justification for this, none. (speech to state department people)

Later in press conference:

Senior administration official one: With regard to whether there is any connection between this Internet activity and this extremist attack in Benghazi, frankly, we just don’t know. We’re not going to know until we have a chance to investigate. And I’m sorry that it is frustrating for you that so many of our answers are “We don’t know,” but they are truthful in that.

Sept. 12, 3:04 p.m.: Clinton calls then-Egyptian Prime Minister Hisham Qandil and tells him, “We know the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack — not a protest.” An account of that call was contained in an email written by State Department Public Affairs Officer Lawrence Randolph that summarizes the call between the two leaders. The email was released by the House Benghazi committee.

Sept 13:

Clinton: Religious freedom and religious tolerance are essential to the stability of any nation, any people. Hatred and violence in the name of religion only poison the well. All people of faith and good will know that the actions of a small and savage group in Benghazi do not honor religion or God in any way. Nor do they speak for the more than 1 billion Muslims around the world, many of whom have shown an outpouring of support during this time.

Unfortunately, however, over the last 24 hours, we have also seen violence spread elsewhere. Some seek to justify this behavior as a response to inflammatory, despicable material posted on the Internet. As I said earlier today, the United States rejects both the content and the message of that video. The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. At our meeting earlier today, my colleague, the foreign minister of Morocco, said that all prophets should be respected because they are all symbols of our humanity, for all humanity.

But both of us were crystal clear in this paramount message: There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind. And we look to leaders around the world to stand up and speak out against violence, and to take steps to protect diplomatic missions from attack.


Question: Jay, one last question — while we were sitting here — [Defense] Secretary [Leon] Panetta and the Vice Chair of the Joint Chiefs briefed the Senate Armed Services Committee. And the senators came out and said their indication was that this, or the attack on Benghazi was a terrorist attack organized and carried out by terrorists, that it was premeditated, a calculated act of terror. Levin said — Senator Levin — I think it was a planned, premeditated attack. The kind of equipment that they had used was evidence it was a planned, premeditated attack. Is there anything more you can — now that the administration is briefing senators on this, is there anything more you can tell us?

Carney: Well, I think we wait to hear from administration officials. Again, it’s actively under investigation, both the Benghazi attack and incidents elsewhere. And my point was that we don’t have and did not have concrete evidence to suggest that this was not in reaction to the film. But we’re obviously investigating the matter, and I’ll certainly — I’m sure both the Department of Defense and the White House and other places will have more to say about that as more information becomes available.


Rice: Bob, let me tell you what we understand to be the assessment at present. First of all, very importantly, as you discussed with the president, there is an investigation that the United States government will launch led by the FBI, that has begun and —

They are not on the ground yet, but they have already begun looking at all sorts of evidence of — of various sorts already available to them and to us. And they will get on the ground and continue the investigation. So we’ll want to see the results of that investigation to draw any definitive conclusions.

But based on the best information we have to date, what our assessment is as of the present is in fact what began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo where, of course, as you know, there was a violent protest outside of our embassy — sparked by this hateful video. But soon after that spontaneous protest began outside of our consulate in Benghazi, we believe that it looks like extremist elements, individuals, joined in that– in that effort with heavy weapons of the sort that are, unfortunately, readily now available in Libya post-revolution. And that it spun from there into something much, much more violent.

Schieffer: But you do not agree with him that this was something that had been plotted out several months ago?

Rice: We do not– we do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.

Schieffer: Do you agree or disagree with him that al Qaeda had some part in this?

Rice: Well, we’ll have to find out that out. I mean I think it’s clear that there were extremist elements that joined in and escalated the violence. Whether they were al Qaeda affiliates, whether they were Libyan-based extremists or al Qaeda itself I think is one of the things we’ll have to determine.

Sept. 18: Asked about Magariaf’s assessment that the video had nothing to do with the terrorist attack in Benghazi, the White House spokesman says Obama “would rather wait” for the investigation to be completed. “But at this time, as Ambassador Rice said and as I said, our understanding and our belief based on the information we have is it was the video that caused the unrest in Cairo, and the video and the unrest in Cairo that helped — that precipitated some of the unrest in Benghazi and elsewhere,” Carney says. “What other factors were involved is a matter of investigation.”


So, yeah the nutsuckers thought it was the video.

Video! Video! Video!

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

We've had several views from the left, including the piece from the Rolling Stone above. How about one from The Wall Street Journal?

Republicans released a new email at the Benghazi hearing written by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to her daughter Chelsea Clinton late on the night of the attacks in Benghazi.
In the email, Mrs. Clinton tells her daughter — who used the email pseudonym “Diane Reynolds” — that the attacks were undertaken by an “Al Queda-like group.”


Republicans seized on the mother-daughter exchange as proof that Mrs. Clinton misled the American people, failing to make clear that the attacks were actually a premeditated act of terrorism.
The private email to Chelsea Clinton, U.S. Rep. Jim Jordan (R., Ohio) said, was at odds with the message in the official statement put out by the State Department that same night under Mrs. Clinton’s name. In that statement, Mrs. Clinton made reference to an anti-Islam video that had sparked violent protests elsewhere in the region.

The email from Hillary Clinton
“Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet,” Mrs. Clinton’s 2012 statement said.
Mr. Jordan said: “You tell the American people one thing, you tell your family an entirely different story.”
He also said that suggesting the video gave rise to the Benghazi attack was “a false narrative” that “started with you, Madame Secretary.”
Republicans believe the Obama administration, worried about winning re-election in 2012, was eager to promote the idea that the attacks were a spontaneous demonstration over an offensive video — not a breakdown in the U.S. fight against terrorism.
Soon after the Benghazi attack, Susan Rice, then the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, reiterated on Sunday talk shows that the episode came amid protests over the video.
Mr. Jordan said “a campaign theme that year was …. Bin Laden’s dead, al-Qaeda’s on the run. And now you have a terrorist attack … and it’s just 56 days before an election. You can live with a protest about a video. That won’t hurt you. But a terrorist attack will.”
In reply, Mrs. Clinton said was careful in how the State Department statement was worded, emphasizing that it made clear how “some” have sought to justify the attacks as a response to the offensive video. She also said she wanted the statement to send a broader message to the region, noting, “I needed to be talking about the video, because I needed to put other governments and other people on notice that we were not going to let them get away with attacking us … .”
http://www.wsj.com/articles/BL-WB-58770

quote:

What Makes the Clinton Email Scandal Unique:

Clinton and her supporters have insisted that she did nothing wrong regarding her use of a private email server during her tenure as secretary of state.

And if it were just another GOP Congressional committee conducting an investigation, Clinton would have nothing to worry about.

But Republicans aren’t the ones looking into possible Hillary Clinton email wrongdoing. It’s the non-partisan Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).

The progress of the FBI probe, which launched in early August, is unknown. But we do know the agency won’t give Clinton a pass because of her status.

“If you know my folks, you know they don’t give a rip about politics,” FBI Director James Comey said in a meeting with reporters Oct. 1. “And my job as director of the FBI is to ensure that we remain those things I said we are: competent, honest and independent – and that we do our work well.”

The wild card, of course, is whether the FBI investigation of the Hillary Clinton email activities will result in any charges. That’s what her campaign fears most. Even if she could successfully fend off any punishment, it’s very doubtful any presidential candidacy – including hers – could survive an indictment.

Here’s why the FBI investigation into the Hillary Clinton emails could end up being the kryptonite that destroys her quest for the presidency…

Charges in the Hillary Clinton Email Probe a Real Possibility:

The Inspector General for the U.S. Intelligence Community expressed concern to the Justice Department in July that classified information that may have been stored on Clinton’s private server could have been “compromised.” That triggered the FBI investigation.

Former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, who served as Associate Attorney General in the Justice Department during the Reagan Administration, believes Clinton potentially violated 15 federal statutes.

Some violations, such as her failure to ensure that all of her business emails were transferred into the State Department system, aren’t particularly serious.

It’s the violations regarding how Clinton handled classified information that could bring an indictment.

Possible violations include:
◾Having classified information in an unauthorized location
◾Transmitting classified information to unauthorized parties (as Clinton did with friend and personal advisor Sidney Blumenthal)
◾Transmitting classified information over an unsecured, unclassified system...

In addition, at least six emails that Clinton both received and sent herself contained information pertaining to foreign governments, which intelligence experts refer to as “born classified.”

In cases like that, how the emails were marked won’t matter. Anything rising to the level of Top Secret is obviously classified material. Any high-ranking official, and especially a secretary of state, would know instinctively it was classified and be expected to treat it accordingly.

Just one mishandled classified email would be enough for the FBI to recommend charges against Clinton.

A decisive factor may be if evidence surfaces that any of the Hillary Clinton emails fell into foreign hands. Last month, we learned that foreign governments such as Russia, China, South Korea, and Germany targeted the Hillary Clinton emails in cyberattacks.

The Hillary Clinton Email Server Was Not Secure:

No one knows if any of the cyberattacks succeeded. But Edward Snowden, the former National Security Agency who divulged large amounts of classified information, told Al-Jazeera last month that the idea her server was secure is “completely ridiculous.”

Snowden suggested that Clinton’s actions could easily be interpreted as violations of federal laws.

“If an ordinary worker at the State Department or the CIA … were sending details about the security of embassies, which is alleged to be in her email, meetings with private government officials, foreign government officials and the statements that were made to them in confidence over unclassified email systems, they would not only lose their jobs and lose their clearance, they would very likely face prosecution for it,” he said...

It’s certainly possible that the FBI investigation will clear Clinton. But until we hear from it, the Hillary Clinton emails will remain a ticking time bomb under her campaign.

quote:

ORIGINAL: hot4bondage

Then the filmmaker was jailed for a rarely-enforced probation violation, and Obama asked YouTube to remove the video. It's abundantly clear that we were purposefully misled.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

FR
And please ignore the fact that she denied bieng out of touch with what was going on while claiming that she never saw any of the requests for more security people. So she relied on things like the safe room to provide all the protection she thought they needed. Incompitence x1000

Pure partisan conjecture. What we do know is that after the W admin., in comparison, everybody looks better, legal and competent...

quote:

On Sunday, however, he gave her campaign a small gift. Appearing on "Fox News Sunday," he called the select committee investigating the 2012 attacks in Benghazi “partisan” for its focus on Clinton and downplayed one of the main new findings the committee has made in relation to Clinton’s private communications.

“Watergate was about a series of crimes, well-established, and so it was the Republicans who eventually turned on Nixon and it was a bipartisan inquiry. Here it is not. It clearly is partisan,” Woodward said.

He was offering a statement of fact -- a simple assessment that half of the committee's panel (the Democratic half) was clearly unconvinced that Clinton had done something criminally wrong. But then Woodward appeared to echo that side's skepticism.

“There are legitimate questions here,” Woodward added. “You have inconsistencies. This is a tragedy and it should be investigated. You are right ... She did and attempted to answer all those questions. But there is no crime here on her part and to try and criminalize it and suggest as some people have said, ‘Oh, she will be in jail.’ I mean there is no evidence of a crime. There is evidence of inconsistency. I mean, my God, this is our business, our lives. People saying one thing privately and saying something different publicly.”

Woodward’s last point was in reference to emails and communiqués uncovered by the committee prior to Thursday’s hearing. In them, Clinton told her daughter, Chelsea, that the group responsible for the Benghazi attack was al Qaeda related. Additionally, in notes on a conversation she had with the Egyptian prime minister, she stated that the attack wasn’t in response to an anti-Muslim tape that had sparked global protests.

Republicans have said this is evidence that Clinton lied to the public in hopes of maintaining the Obama campaign narrative that terrorists were in retreat. Clinton has said that these were simply reflections of the difficulty in getting solid intelligence in the aftermath of the attack -- the fog of war.

Woodward’s position appears to be something else entirely: Yes, the emails and communiqués are concerning ("It better bother us," he said), but let’s not pretend that politicians don’t mislead the public all the time.