Judge orders text of Clinton emails on Benghazi to be released-

Judge orders text of Clinton emails on Benghazi to be released–47jh.,b43

The full contents of two Hillary Clinton emails about the Benghazi attack will soon be brought to light in the wake of a federal judge’s ruling Friday that the State Department has to share with the American people the contents of two emails sent two days after the 2012 attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Libya.

The two emails, dated Sept. 13, 2012, consist of eight identical paragraphs, Judicial Watch said, and bore the subject line, “Quick Summary of POTUS Calls to Presidents of Libya and Egypt.” The State Department originally released the emails to Judicial Watch, but redacted the contents using what’s known as the “deliberative process” exemption.

However, U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson read the emails and said the exemption was not applicable. Judicial Watch said the redaction was not a mistake but part of a “deliberate effort by the State Department to protect Clinton and the agency by avoiding identifying emails on Clinton’s unofficial, non-secure email server as classified.”

The emails were shared with top Obama administration officials including Deputy Secretary of State William Burns, Under Secretary of State Wendy Sherman, Clinton Deputy Chief of Staff Jacob Sullivan, Special Assistant Robert Russo, and Deputy National Security Adviser Denis McDonough. The attack on the Benghazi compound resulted in the deaths of four Americans. Clinton and the Obama White House offered the American public a very different version of the cause than the one they expressed privately.

Clinton had said the administration was “working to determine the precise motivations” of the attackers but that “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.” That material, the Obama administration claimed, was an anti-Islamic video posted on YouTube.

However, Clinton’s private comments were different. “We know that the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack — not a protest,” she said in a call to Egypt’s prime minister. “Based on the information we saw today, we believe the group that claimed responsibility for this was affiliated with al Qaeda.”

On Sept. 14, 2012, White House spokesman Jay Carney, said, “We have no information to suggest that it was a preplanned attack. The unrest we’ve seen around the region has been in reaction to a video that Muslims, many Muslims find offensive. And while the violence is reprehensible and unjustified, it is not a reaction to the 9/11 anniversary that we know of, or to U.S. policy.”

Benghazi report points out Obama, Clinton lies:

The scandal of Benghazi is one that has plagued the Obama administration repeatedly — the effort to deflect attention from failed American foreign policy and the rise of terrorism — through a conscious spin effort that hid the truth from the American public. The Obama administration knew attacks on the consulate were because of terrorism, but they knowingly changed the narrative to blame an “inflammatory” viral video — to escape any culpability of the attacks so close to a November election. In the 2012 campaign, Mr. Obama repeatedly spoke of not only killing Osama bin Laden, but how Al Qaeda

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

The scandal of Benghazi is one that has plagued the Obama administration repeatedly — the effort to deflect attention from failed American foreign policy and the rise of terrorism — through a conscious spin effort that hid the truth from the American public. In the end, it worked. President Barack Obama was re-elected and Hillary Clinton is now leading in the polls to become his successor.

But before you cast your vote in November, you should read the House Benghazi report released Tuesday — to at least recognize how self-interested politicians have become.

The Obama administration knew attacks on the consulate were because of terrorism, but they knowingly changed the narrative to blame an “inflammatory” viral video — to escape any culpability of the attacks so close to a November election. In the 2012 campaign, Mr. Obama repeatedly spoke of not only killing Osama bin Laden, but how Al Qaeda had been “decimated” under his watch. Any word Benghazi was actually a terrorist attack would undermine this narrative.

Privately, in a summary of a call between Mrs. Clinton and the President of Libya Mohammad al Magariaf about three hours earlier, there was no talk of a viral video, only terrorism. “[O]ur diplomatic mission was attacked[.] … [T]here is a gun battle ongoing, which I understand Ansar as-Sharia [sic] is claiming responsibility for,” a transcript of the call read.

After Mrs. Clinton made her public statements, blaming the video, she then emailed her daughter with the truth: “Two of our officers were killed in Benghazi by an al Qaeda like group.” The next day, Mrs. Clinton told the American public the administration was “working to determine the precise motivations” of those who carried out the assaults (just like the Orlando attack), but that “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.”

Privately, she told the Egyptian Prime minister: “We know that the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack — not a protest. … Based on the information we saw today we believe the group that claimed responsibility for this was affiliated with al Qaeda.” CIA Deputy Director Michael Morrell said in a written statement to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence a few days later: “The critically important point is that the analysts considered this a terror attack from the very beginning.”

Mrs. Clinton blamed her changing public statements on differing intelligence reports she received in real-time. But there’s no evidence to suggest Mrs. Clinton had anything but clarity, right from the evening of the attack, that it was indeed terrorism. Her public and private statements remained consistent, albeit at odds. Privately, there was no doubt the attack was terrorism; publicly, it was blamed on a video and protesting — despite there being no eyewitness accounts of a protest.

source-western journalism, jack davis, judical watch, endy sherman, jacob sullivan, denis mcdonough, robert russo, illiam burns, wash times, kely riddell, michael morrell,

 

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s