Hillary Clinton Email Archive

Hillary Clinton Email Archive

Search Hillary's emails click here

Hillary Clinton For Prison 2016 T- Shirt

Hillary Clinton For Prison 2016

The Benghazi Cover-Up is Beginning to Collapse!

Though still treading lightly, Democrats appear to bebacking away from President Barack Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton over their handling of the Benghazi terror attack and their past comments. This has taken many people by surprise because, up to this point, the Democrats as a group have largely supported the Obama administration’s explanation ofBenghazi and blamed the Republicans for trying to create a scandal where there is none.

Several prominent Democrats have appeared on Sunday morning news shows, including Fox News Sunday and Meet the Press, to discuss the various facts that have come to light as a result of an ongoing investigation into the Benghazi embassy attack.

The list of Democrats backing away from Obama is growing and includes Representative Stephen Lynch (D-MA), who is on the Government Oversight Committee, and Representative Dutch Ruppersberger (D-MD), who is the Ranking Member of the HouseIntelligence Committee. This is still just the beginning. Watch the interviews below:

Stephen Lynch (D-MA) admits that the Benghazi Talking Points were simply false:

Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger (D-MD), also conceded that the reports were edited in order to reflect something that wasn’t true, though he claims this was during a “volatile” time. Don’t expect these Democrats to be the last.

The media is turning on Obama and Hillary as well, though not fully, yet. Remember, almost any level of criticism is a step in the right direction, considering the media has been acting as the “fourth branch” of government for the last four years.

The Democratic concerns emanate from the fact that the CIA talking points explaining the circumstances surrounding the Benghazi embassy attack were changed by the Obama Administration to eliminate mention of Islamic terrorism. This raises the question of whether the changes were meant to cover up catastrophic decisions by the State Department concerning embassy support and security. I think we know the answer: yes.

Click here to see the 6 biggest scandals from Hillary’s involvement with Benghazi so far.

The level of incompetence, sheer evil, and negligence on Hillary’s part is simply breath taking. The fact that millions of Americans still want her to be president is an example of the philosophical sickness that’s eating away at America’s moral fabric.

http://www.capitalisminstitute.org/the-benghazi-cover-rup/

Benghazi:What About the Video?

So, what about the video? The White House last week released nearly 100 pages of emails detailing some of the discussions within the Obama administration that resulted in major revisions to talking points about the Benghazi attacks drafted by the Central Intelligence Agency.

EMAILS, SCHMEMAILS—LET’S MOVE ON.

KEVIN LAMARQUE / REUTERS / LANDOV

From the beginning, there have been two big questions about the administration’s deceptive spin on Benghazi: How were the talking points whittled down to virtually nothing from the CIA’s original draft? And how did a previously obscure YouTube video gain such prominence in the administration’s explanation of what happened in Benghazi?

The emails fill in at least some of the details about the talking points. They also leave in ruins administration claims that White House and State Department officials were mere bystanders in the process. But how, exactly, the video became so prominent in the administration’s public rhetoric remains something of a mystery.

The new documents disprove claims by Obama spokesman Jay Carney, Hillary Clinton, and others that the White House and State Department had virtually nothing to do with rewriting the talking points. Carney maintained that officials from State and the White House were responsible for a “single adjustment” to the language. Clinton insisted that the intelligence community was the “principal decider” of what would be said. But the emails make clear that top White House and State officials played key roles in reshaping the CIA’s initial draft.

“The State Department had major reservations with much or most of the document,” wrote a CIA official from the Office of Public Affairs, at 9:15 p.m. on September 14. “We revised the document with their concerns in mind.”An official with the CIA’s Office of Terrorism Analysis, where the talking points originated, signed off on the changes but warned that members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) wouldn’t be pleased. “They are fine with me. But, pretty sure HPSCI won’t like them. :-)”

The emails make clear that many of the deliberations about changing the talking points—phone calls, teleconferences, and discussions—were not recorded. But a picture nonetheless emerges of officials keenly interested to avoid blame, protect their bureaucracies, and settle on a message that all could live with.

At the end of a chain of emails in the early evening of September 14 regarding the “concerns” of State Department “leadership,” Ben Rhodes, a top adviser to Obama on national security, reassures the group that all concerns would get a hearing. “We need to resolve this in a way that respects all of the relevant equities, particularly the investigation,” he wrote. Rhodes worried about “wrong information” coming from briefings provided to Congress and argued “we need to have the capability to correct the record, as there are significant policy and messaging ramifications that would flow from a hardened misimpression.”

Rhodes doesn’t specify the “wrong information” that concerns him or what “messaging” problems the president might face. But in the days preceding the email members of both parties had begun to challenge administration claims that the attacks were the result of a mob gone wild. Carl Levin, Michigan Democrat and chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, had told reporters that the government had “evidence” the attacks were “pre-planned.” Adam Smith, a Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, said the same thing. Following an intelligence committee briefing, Mike Rogers, a Republican from Michigan, said: “This was a coordinated attack, more of a commando-style event.”

Rhodes ends his email by advising recipients that the issues would be addressed during a Deputies Committee meeting the following day, one of several times the decisionmaking process appears to have gone offline.

That same evening, Jake Sullivan, the deputy chief of staff and director of policy planning at the State Department, emails Victoria Nuland, the department spokesman, to inform her of conversations he’s had with Tommy Vietor, spokesman for the National Security Council at the White House. “I spoke with Tommy,” he wrote at 9:25 p.m., September 14. “We’ll work through this in the morning and get comments back.” In another, seven minutes later: “Talked to Tommy. We can make edits.” Another round of substantive edits took place during or after the Deputies Committee meeting the following morning.

Such exchanges between a top official at State and his counterpart at the White House belie claims from Carney and others that substantive revisions to the talking points came only from the intelligence community.

READ MORE

Benghazi, IRS, AP scandals -- will buck ever stop with Obama?

The first question for White House spokesman Jay Carney at Tuesday's press briefing went right to the heart of the growing crisis facing President Obama:

In the matters of the Benghazi terror attack, the IRS targeting conservative groups, the Justice Department going after AP phone records, “…doesn’t responsibility for setting tone, setting direction ultimately rest with the president?” 

That question of “where the buck stops” harkens back to another Democrat who occupied the Oval Office some 60 years ago, “Give ‘em Hell” Harry Truman but the answer is as relevant today.

What we have is an administration that is adrift and leaking more controversy and unanswered questions every day.

Benghazi may not be "Obama's Watergate," as Sen. Lindsay Graham has called it, but what we have is an administration that is adrift and leaking more controversy and unanswered questions every day.

On Libya, a detailed examination of the record shows that the White House has had no consistent message on what happened on September 11. In fact, they changed their message from day to day -- and it's clear that the administration's actions in the days and weeks after the Benghazi tragedy was all political maneuvering.

The White House has been caught not telling the full story, and modifying the narrative for political ends.

But that’s just a piece of the troubling picture emerging from the West Wing.

We have Attorney General Eric Holder -- he who managed to dodge full responsibility for the “Fast & Furious” gun-walking debacle in the president's first term -- revealing Tuesday that he had recused himself from the investigation into Justice Department gathering of phone records from more than “20 separate telephone lines assigned to the AP and its journalists in April and May of 2012.” 

The bipartisan response to Monday's disturbing challenge to press freedom was swift. Speaker Boehner's office said Monday, “they better have a damned good explanation.” And Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, a Democrat, acknowledge he’s “very troubled” by the allegations.

Then there is the very serious matter of the IRS singling out conservative Tea Party and Patriot groups, among others, for special scrutiny when they sought to apply for tax-exempt status. The president says he's “outraged” -- but also said Monday that he knows nothing about this news.

But “newly obtained documents” show the current IRS chief knew about the agency's targeting of Tea Party groups as early as May 2012, and other officials in Washington were clued in more than a year before that, as the scandal continued to spread.

Perhaps even more telling is White House spokesman Jay Carney’s acknowledgement to reporters Tuesday that the administration is getting its information on these matters from news reports.

Again, who’s in charge here?

And finally there's what appears, from the public record that has emerged so far, to be the prevarication, without any clear explanation, from the administration on Benghazi: 

On November 28th, 2012, Carney stated that the State Department had only changed one word of Susan Rice's talking points -- we now know this not to be the case. We also know that within hours of the attack, the White House, the State Department and the FBI received emails saying that an Islamic group had claimed credit -- even going so far as to identify Ansar al-Sharia as the group.  

This epidemic of evasions, and most likely falsehoods, only raises more questions.  The White House, the State Department, Hillary Clinton and any additional officials involved have committed a serious breach of trust with regard to the American people, and moreover,  their actions are an insult to the American citizens who died in Libya that night, on the 11th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.

What’s next?

Just months into his final four years in office, President Obama is facing a credibility crisis, one that threatens his fundamental abilities to govern.

Congress needs to get to the bottom of not only Benghazi, but these other scandals so that the American people can regain some semblance of trust in a government that is seemingly run amok.

Perhaps it's time for the president to gather his inner circle to lay down the law -- clean house if and when necessary -- and to assure the American people that regardless of where these investigations may lead, ultimately: “The buck stops here.”

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/05/14/benghazi-irs-ap-scandals-will-buck-ever-stop-with-obama/#ixzz2TMJErnI8

Benghazi, IRS: Son of Watergate?

In his defense of President Obama, Press Secretary Jay Carney is beginning to sound a lot like Ronald Zeigler, Richard Nixon's spokesman. Carney only has to use the word "inoperative," as Ziegler did when incriminating evidence surfaced that proved his previous statements untrue.

Following what appears to be a cover-up in the Benghazi attack, the Washington Post has obtained documents from an audit conducted by the IRS's inspector general that indicate the agency targeted for special scrutiny conservative groups with "tea party" and "patriot" in their names, as well as "nonprofit groups that criticized the government and sought to educate Americans about the U.S. Constitution."

IRS official Lois Lerner described the targeting efforts as "absolutely inappropriate," but said IRS actions were not driven by partisanship. How, then, would she explain why no groups with "progressive" in their titles were similarly targeted? Carney labeled Lerner an "appointee from the previous administration." In other words: Bush's mistake, not Obama's.

The Post's editorial board writes, "A bedrock principle of U.S. democracy is that the coercive powers of government are never used for partisan purpose." The board called for a full accounting. I doubt we'll get it. Take Benghazi.

ABC News first reported that the now famous Benghazi "talking points" used by U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice on five Sunday morning news shows were revised 12 times, deleting references to "the al-Qaida-affiliated group Ansar al-Sharia (and) CIA warnings about terrorist threats in Benghazi in the months preceding the attack."

Carney said Ambassador Rice's initial claim -- that the attack grew out of protests over a video that insulted Islam -- was based on what was known to U.S. intelligence at the time. But as last week's testimony by three whistleblowers before the House Oversight Committee revealed, much more was known at the time.

Contributing to cover-up suspicions is the administration's continued stonewalling when asked to provide information on Benghazi. CNN sources acknowledge that "An email discussion about talking points the Obama administration used to describe the deadly attack on the U.S. compound in Benghazi, Libya, show the White House and State Department were more involved than they first said..." The American people deserve the full story.

The latest, but probably not the last shocker, is a report in The Daily Caller about CBS News Correspondent Sharyl Attkisson, who has "steadily covered the Obama administration's handling of the Benghazi terrorist attack in Libya," reportedly frustrating CBS News executives who claim her unrelenting coverage is "bordering on advocacy" on the issue. Now, according to Politico, Attkisson can't get some of her stories about Benghazi on the air. Oh, did I fail to mention that CBS News President David Rhodes is the brother of Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes? Coincidental? Attkisson is reportedly in talks to leave the network. Is it because she chooses to behave like a real journalist instead of a cheerleader for Obama?

On Friday, Carney held a "secret briefing" on Benghazi for a select number of White House reporters, raising the ire of reporters not in the room. Is this what the Obama administration calls transparency?

Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA) has asked Speaker John Boehner to name a select committee to investigate the Benghazi attack with full subpoena powers that could place witnesses under oath. Boehner should. Meanwhile, House Oversight Subcommittee Chairman Charles Boustany (R-LA) has demanded the IRS turn over by Wednesday all communications containing the words "conservative," "patriot" or "tea party." And the IRS should.

Democrats now accuse Republicans of partisanship, claiming their motive is to damage Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential prospects. If she has nothing to hide, transparency should enhance, not harm, her chances. We've learned more about Benghazi since her appearance before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in January and she should be asked to account for it.

In 1972, Republican partisans initially accused Democrats of wanting to destroy President Nixon, but most were forced to acknowledge his culpability in Watergate once the facts became known. One of the Articles of Impeachment of Nixon concerned his misuse of the IRS to undermine political enemies.

Journalists should stop protecting President Obama and Hillary Clinton and do their jobs, like Sharyl Attkisson. Congressional Republicans should press for all the facts. That's their job.

READ MORE

HOUSE MAJORITY WHIP: 'WE WILL INVESTIGATE' IRS, BENGHAZI, AP SCANDALS

On Monday, House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) responded to reports that the Department of Justice had secretly obtained two full months of phone records from the Associated Press, prompting the AP’s President and Chief Executive Officer Gary Pruitt to call it a “massive and unprecedented intrusion.” He also commented on the administration’s ever-changing story with regard to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2012 in Benghazi, Libya, and the IRS’ admissions that it politically targeted conservative organizations for scrutiny.

McCarthy told Breitbart News:

I am deeply concerned by the numerous reports of misconduct by the Administration, from whistler blower testimony regarding Benghazi to the Internal Revenue Service targeting groups based on political ideology and now the Department of Justice monitoring journalists with Associated Press. The House has both the authority and the prerogative to conduct oversight of the executive branch and agencies. We will investigate these matters fully. There is nothing I take more seriously than our constitutional freedoms and liberties.

Ben Shapiro is Editor-At-Large of Breitbart News and author of the New York Times bestseller “Bullies: How the Left’s Culture of Fear and Intimidation Silences America” (Threshold Editions, January 8, 2013).

READ MORE

BENGHAZI: Names of ‘whistle-blower’ witnesses revealed

Their identities have been a well-guarded secret, known only to their high-powered lawyers and a handful of House lawmakers and staff. But now Fox News has learned the names of the self-described Benghazi “whistle-blowers” who are set to testify before a widely anticipated congressional hearing on Wednesday.

Appearing before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee will be three career State Department officials: Gregory N. Hicks, the deputy chief of mission at the U.S. Embassy in Libya at the time of the Benghazi terrorist attacks; Mark I. Thompson, a former Marine and now the deputy coordinator for Operations in the agency’s Counterterrorism Bureau; and Eric Nordstrom, a diplomatic security officer who was the regional security officer in Libya, the top security officer in the country in the months leading up to the attacks.

U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed in the Sept. 11, 2012, attacks on the U.S. outpost in Benghazi, Libya.

At the time of Stevens' death, Hicks became the highest-ranking American diplomat in Libya.

Nordstrom previously testified before the oversight committee, which is chaired by Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., in October 2012. Of the three witnesses, he is the only one who does not consider himself a whistle-blower. At last fall's hearing, however, Nordstrom made headlines by detailing for lawmakers the series of requests that he, Ambassador Stevens, and others had made for enhanced security at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi in the period preceding the attacks, requests mostly rejected by State Department superiors.

"For me the Taliban is on the inside of the [State Department] building," Nordstrom testified, angry over inadequate staffing at a time when the threat environment in Benghazi was deteriorating, 

The other two witnesses have not been heard from publicly before.

Hicks is a veteran Foreign Service officer whose overseas postings have also included Afghanistan, Syria, and Yemen.

Rep. Jason Chaffetz, a Utah Republican and committee member, said Hicks was in Tripoli at 9:40 p.m. local time when he received one of Stevens’ earliest phone calls amid the crisis.

“We’re under attack! We’re under attack!” the ambassador reportedly shouted into his cellphone at Hicks.

Chaffetz, who subsequently debriefed Hicks, also said the deputy “immediately called into Washington to trigger all the mechanisms” for an inter-agency response.

“The real-life trauma that [Hicks] went through,” Chaffetz recalled to Fox News’ Greta Van Susteren, “I mean, I really felt it in his voice. It was hard to listen to. He’s gone through a lot, but he did a great job.”

According to the State Department website, Thompson “advises senior leadership on operational counterterrorism matters, and ensures that the United States can rapidly respond to global terrorism crises.”

Five years before the Benghazi attacks, he lectured at a symposium hosted by the University of Central Florida and titled “The Global Terrorism Challenge: Answers to Key Questions.”

Joe diGenova, a former U.S. attorney, and wife Victoria Toensing, a former chief counsel to the Senate Intelligence Committee -- Republicans -- disclosed this week that in their private practice in the nation’s capital, they now represent pro bono two career State Department employees who regard themselves as “whistle-blowers” and would be testifying before Issa’s committee at its next Benghazi hearing, on May 8. 

The lawyers said their clients believe their accounts of Benghazi were spurned by the Accountability Review board (ARB), the official investigative body convened by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to review the terrorist attacks, and that the two employees have faced threats and intimidation from as-yet-unnamed superiors.

 “I'm not talking generally, I'm talking specifically about Benghazi -- that people have been threatened,” Toensing told Fox News on Wednesday. “And not just the State Department; people have been threatened at the CIA. ... It's frightening. ...They're taking career people and making them well aware that their careers will be over.”

DiGenova told Fox News on Thursday, by way of describing his and Toensing’s respective clients: “There were people who were material witnesses, who wanted to talk to [the ARB], and they were not allowed to talk to them.

“The people that we are representing are career civil servants...people who have served the country overseas…in dangerous positions all over the world, have risked their lives and only want to tell the truth.”

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/04/benghazi-names-whistleblower-witnesses-revealed/#ixzz2SQMl8NSJ