For those who drank the hope and change Kool-Aid, here’s some bad news: the ‘fundamental transformation of America’ is in full swing and as they used to say in show biz, “you ain’t seen nothin’ yet!”
That’s because the last 18 months of this corrupt narcissist’s rule will make the first six-and-a-half years look like a high school civics lesson in good governance. I have always found it ironic that the son of a Kenyan Muslim Marxist and disaffected white liberal woman should grow up to become President of the United States. What’s more, the way in which he arrived at the presidency is shall we say, unusual.
Here’s a guy who was elected on the basis of being a good-looking black man who could speak well. We’ve never read anything that he wrote during his law school years, don’t know what his grades were, in fact, that entire chapter of his life is securely under seal. Why would that be?
And for those of us who believed that Constitutional Government entailed a series of checks and balances between the three branches of government, the Obama years have permanently disabused us of that notion.
(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that newly revealed testimony from the Obama State Department under court order directly ties Hillary Clinton, for the first time, to the now-debunked Benghazi talking points used by United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice to claim that the attack was the result of a “spontaneous protest” gone awry. The Obama administration also sent false talking points about the attack to Congress. The State Department is refusing to divulge the contents of the email, citing a discretionary “deliberative process” privilege.
Judicial Watch filed a Freedom of Information (FOIA) lawsuit in July 2014 seeking records related to the drafting and use of the talking points (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:14-cv-01242)). The lawsuit sought records specifically from Hillary Clinton and her top State Department staff about the Benghazi talking points scandal:
Photo via Fellowship of the Minds
Some of us remember that Barack Obama jetted off to a fundraiser in Las Vegas on the night our consulate in Benghazi was attacked by terrorists associated with Al Qaeda. Now you might be able to offer this defense of the president: He can do his job from anywhere. He has communication capabilities wherever he goes, and he has the freedom to use them any time he wants.
And, yes, that’s true. And on the night of September 11, 2012, he did make use of his communication tools to talk with then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton about what was happening in Benghazi. Not only that, but it turns out there is a transcript of that call in the possession of the State Department.
So what did they say? Ha! They’re not telling you, sillies. What they said is for them to know and you to not find out.
They said it was a “protest” not a terrorist attack.
Now there’s more proof that they lied.
The Obama administration knew al-Qaeda was planning an attack in Benghazi to “kill as many Americans as possible” ten days in advance.
Judicial Watch reported:
Judicial Watch announced today that it obtained more than 100 pages of previously classified “Secret” documents from the Department of Defense (DOD)and the Department of State revealing that DOD almost immediately reported that the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi was committed by the al Qaeda and Muslim Brotherhood-linked “Brigades of the Captive Omar Abdul Rahman” (BCOAR), and had been planned at least 10 days in advance. Rahman is known as the Blind Sheikh, and is serving life in prison for his involvement in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and other terrorist acts. The new documents also provide the first official confirmation that shows the U.S. government was aware of arms shipments from Benghazi to Syria. The documents also include an August 2012 analysis warning of the rise of ISIS and the predicted failure of the Obama policy of regime change in Syria.
The documents were released in response to a court order in accordance with a May 15, 2014, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed against both the DOD and State Department seeking communications between the two agencies and congressional leaders “on matters related to the activities of any agency or department of the U.S. government at the Special Mission Compound and/or classified annex in Benghazi.”
Spelling and punctuation is duplicated in this release without corrections.
A Defense Department document from the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), dated September 12, 2012, the day after the Benghazi attack, details that the attack on the compound had been carefully planned by the BOCAR terrorist group “to kill as many Americans as possible.” The document was sent to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Obama White House National Security Council. The heavily redacted Defense Department “information report” says that the attack on the Benghazi facility “was planned and executed by The Brigades of the Captive Omar Abdul Rahman (BCOAR).” The group subscribes to “AQ ideologies:”
The attack was planned ten or more days prior on approximately 01 September 2012. The intention was to attack the consulate and to kill as many Americans as possible to seek revenge for U.S. killing of Aboyahiye ((ALALIBY)) in Pakistan and in memorial of the 11 September 2001 atacks on the World Trade Center buildings
“A violent radical,” the DIA report says, is “the leader of BCOAR is Abdul Baset ((AZUZ)), AZUZ was sent by ((ZAWARI)) to set up Al Qaeda (AQ) bases in Libya.”
Socialism is not the Answer
So the cover-up and corruption continues…..
When Nixon did this, Congress started the impeachment process to remove him from office. This Congress has no spine and would never do anything to upset Barry but that’s just my opinion.
Let the cover up continue!
Via Washington Examiner:
The State Department has informed the House Select Committee on Benghazi that it is withholding “a small number” of documents from investigators on the basis of “important executive branch institutional interests.” The statement, made in a letter from Assistant Secretary of State Julia Frifield to committee chairman Rep. Trey Gowdy, amounts to a de facto claim of some form of executive branch privilege.
Frifield made the claim in a letter turning over 3,600 pages of Benghazi-related documents from three current and former administration officials: Susan Rice, Jake Sullivan, and Cheryl Mills. Rice, a former United Nations ambassador, is now national security adviser, while Sullivan and Mills are close aides to Hillary Clinton who worked at the department when she was secretary of state.
Photo via Fellowship of the Minds
Hillary Clinton has done a number of despicable things to cover up what happened in Benghazi, Libya, on Sept. 11, 2012. However, up until now, she hadn’t had the gumption to call herself the hero of the Benghazi attack.
Or so we thought. In an email Clinton sent to an aide about the attack on the U.S. Embassy in Libya’s second-largest city, the former secretary of state congratulated herself for her ability to “survive” the storm over Benghazi and claimed that she had “triumphed.”
The revelation came in a particularly barf-worthy piece of hagiographic nonsense posing as a profile article in Friday’s The Washington Post.
Accuracy in Media
Exclusive to Accuracy in Media
The emails show more than you might think
On August 21, 2011, a top aide to Hillary Clinton penned a memo lauding his boss for steering U.S. policy in Libya, aimed at convincing the media of her accomplishments as Secretary of State.
“HRC has been a critical voice on Libya in administration deliberations, at NATO, and in contact group meetings—as well as the public face of the U.S. effort in Libya. She was instrumental in securing the authorization, building the coalition, and tightening the noose around Qadhafi and his regime,” Clinton aide Jake Sullivan wrote.
Sullivan’s memo to Mrs. Clinton’s inner circle is, of course, embarrassing today, which is one reason you are not reading about it on the front pages of The New York Times or The Washington Post.
But that’s not the only reason.