- Hillary lied about the cause and nature of the attack: Hillary repeatedly offered misleading or outright false testimony. She lied in 2012 when she claimed publicly that the Benghazi attack was the result of an “offensive video”, but privately told her family and associates that the attack was a terrorist strike carried out “by an Al Qaeda-like group.” Hillary also had a conversation with the Egyptian foreign minister the day after the attack in which she said that, “We know that the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack – not a protest.” Two days later, when she participated in the ceremony at Andrews Air Force Base to receive the bodies of Benghazi victims, she told families of the victims that she would ensure the US Government would prosecute the filmmaker of the video as the cause of the attack.
- Hillary willfully ignored the security of the Libyan outpost: In 2011, Hillary’s email correspondence with regard to Benghazi constituted 795 emails. During this time, the security situation in Libya continued to deteriorate, and Ambassador Chris Stevens’ office repeatedly (over 600 times) requested increases in security. These requests were ignored by Clinton; either directly – she disregarded the requests, or indirectly – she failed to ensure they reached her desk. During 2012, in the run-up to the election, Clinton’s email traffic to and from Benghazi was cut dramatically – only 67 emails, in spite of increasingly desperate diplomatic communiques outlining the concerns and issues of the Libyan post. Committee member Rep. Susan Brooks said the emails show there were daily updates, sometimes hourly, from Clinton’s staff about Benghazi and Chris Stevens in 2011. But emails sent from early 2012 until the Sept. 11, 2012, attack show only a handful of emails to Clinton from senior aides about Stevens.
- The Libyan intervention policy debacle is Hillary’s: Hillary was the main motivation behind the Obama administration’s decision to go into Libya. Obama had sent mixed signals of his intentions, but Clinton worked with Britain and France to push for American involvement in the Libyan Civil War, after Qaddafi indicated he would wipe out opposition forces. Hillary’s information and intelligence on Libya came largely from Sidney Blumenthal. Blumenthal’s interest in Libya stemmed from business he had in country, and the information he provided Clinton directly advanced those interests. Hillary also claimed to have no knowledge of Blumenthal’s business interests in Libya, but responded to at least one email from Blumenthal, acknowledging the arrangement. Hillary deliberately circumvented the Obama administration’s policy on Sidney Blumenthal who had been blackballed by the White House from employment in the State Department. She reported that she was not getting policy advice or input from him, and when it was discovered that she was in fact receiving information from him, testified that “it was unsolicited” – a lie disproved by her emails in which she responds numerous times, “anything else to add?” or “anything else to convey?”
- Hillary still has not turned over ALL her emails: Clinton repeatedly says alternating versions of the same thing; she either turned over “all relevant emails,” “the vast majority of emails,” “every email associated,” and now the most absurd “90-95% of work-related emails.” Late in Clinton’s appearance before the committee, she told the Rep. Trey Gowdy that “90 to 95% of my work related emails were in the State’s system, if they wanted to see them, they would certainly have been able to do so.” The State Department themselves can neither back up the claim, nor identify where Clinton got the number she apparently made up out of thin air. Worst of all is the alarming and conspicuous two-month gap in the email trail. Thus far, there are no emails between Clinton and her State Department staff during May and June 2012, a period of escalating violence in Libya leading up to the September 11 attack.
Above all, we learned that the security failures that placed our consulate and staff in mortal danger were not an oversight. They were a direct result of failed, corrupt, misguided and wrong-headed policy.
Compounding this tragedy was the deliberate and intentional attempt by the Obama Administration – led by the President, Ambassador Rice and Clinton – to deceive the American people by blaming the attack on a “spontaneous demonstration in response to an offensive internet video”, in an attempt to avoid damaging President Obama’s 2012 re-election effort.
Clinton, Ambassador Rice and President Obama deliberately, intentionally and willfully lied to the American people, in the desperate hope that people would not connect Al-Qaeda – which the President assured America was on the run and all but extinguished – to this monstrous attack, because knowing that he had failed to defeat this terrorist organization may have caused voters to decide that the President’s accomplishment of killing Osama Bin Laden had yielded little measurable result, thus depriving him of his one actual accomplishment of his first term.
Given this pattern of institutional deception, for any of us to believe Hillary’s concocted hogwash now would require – as she once put so eloquently – ‘a willing suspension of disbelief.’