Benghazi

Benghazi survivor unloads the truth: ‘Hillary and Obama left me… to die.’
January 1, 2018
George Sheldon / Shutterstock.com
The attack on Benghazi in 2012 was more than a tragedy — it was a likely-criminal case of negligence on the part of then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the Barack Obama administration. The event, which was memorialized in the blockbuster hit 13 Hours, continues to be a contentious issue among Americans.
On New Year’s Eve, Benghazi survivor Kris Paronto reignited the controversy by tweeting that Clinton and Obama left him, his team, and 30 other Americans to die during the 13-hour, seemingly-pre-planned storming of the U.S. embassy in Libya.
Paronto’s tweet comes just a month after Ahmed Abu Khatallah, a key figure in the Benghazi terrorist attack, was found not guilty of murder.
Left to DieIt all started with a simple New Years greeting. Paronto wrote, “Happy New Year everyone! This is the time to put trouble and past mistakes behind you, but remember to learn from them so they’re not repeated, and start with a clean slate,” and thanked his followers for their support, sharing the post on Instagram and Twitter.
Baseball legend Curt Shilling, an avid Trump supporter, responded, tweeting his best wishes and encouragement to Paronto on Twitter on New Year’s Eve:

However, things quickly turned political when a user under the handle “@hatefulhairdresser” replied to Schilling’s kind tweet and claimed, “Trump cut their benefits and raised their taxes. Good job.”
Paronto, an Army Ranger, did not take kindly to @hatefulhairdresser’s tweet, and clearly articulated the people he believed were responsible for that tragic night in Benghazi. In response to @hatefulhairdresser, Paronto tweeted:

There is nothing in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act that raises taxes or cuts the benefits of veterans or military members. In fact, most veterans and military members will receive a tax cut, as most of them fall into the middle-class or lower.
Reflections on BenghaziParonto’s tweet comes a month after Ahmed Abu Khatallah, a key figure in the Benghazi terrorist attack, was cleared of murder charges.
Paronto was furious, calling the verdict “disgusting” and “a travesty.”
When asked by Independent Journal Review about Khatallah being called the “mastermind” of the Benghazi attack, Paronto disagreed, but explained:
First of all, let’s clear something up: Khatallah is being called the mastermind. He was part of the operation, yes. But to call him a mastermind, I don’t agree with that. He wasn’t the guy. I wouldn’t compare him to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and 9/11 like some have done.
The thing that bothers me about Khatallah is that he was a commander in the Martyrs of 17 February Brigade, a terrorist organization. The 17th Feb was supposed to help us and protect the consulate and were not vetted well enough. I told them they had a jihadist group there at the compound.
So Khatallah has ties to the group behind the attack — Ansar Al-Sharia — and we are still playing nice. What do they think? Are those terrorists going to see this news and be quaking in their boots? No, they’re going to laugh that we are trying them in a criminal court. He’s an enemy combatant. It’s sickening.”
The Army Ranger condemned the Obama administration for allowing the extraction of Khatallah to the U.S. and the political gamesmanship he perceived throughout the whole ordeal. Paronto claimed:
It’s a political charade of the Obama administration. We went and grabbed this guy. There are only two options when dealing with terrorists. Number one, you grab them, interrogate them until you get all the intelligence you can and then throw them in GITMO. Number two, you put them to death. I refused to testify because of how political this all was.
I told them, “If you want me to testify, you’re going to have to subpoena me.”
Paronto further criticized the notion of due process for terrorists in his interview — especially when they are not American. He said:
Ambassador [J. Christopher] Stevens didn’t get due process when he was burning alive and dying of smoke inhalation.
You do not let terrorists face a criminal court. You let the CIA or the military handle the issue. Interrogate, interrogate, interrogate. And you let the others face a firing squad.
This is a circus show for politicians. It is purely political. My recommendation to the extraction teams that go and get these targets in the future, the ones who would never give you a fair trial or any degree of humanity, don’t bring them back at all. Instead, put a bullet in their head.
Though the details of what specifically happened that night may never be fully revealed, Paronto was one of the few that survived that horrific ordeal, and his input should be prioritized by the intelligence community in their efforts to ensure something similar to Benghazi never happens again.
The Obama administration lied and covered up the details of the events surrounding that terror attack in Benghazi, but President Donald Trump can now finally get to the bottom of who was responsible for the death of four Americans.
__________________________

From Wikileaks So here’s the REAL story. Amb. Stevens was sent to Benghazi pos…
October 30, 2016 staff From Wikileaks
So here’s the REAL story.
Amb. Stevens was sent to Benghazi post haste in order to retrieve US made Stinger missiles supplied to Ansar al Sharia without Congressional oversight or permission.
Hillary brokered the deal through Stevens and a private arms dealer named Marc Turi. Then some of the shoulder fired missiles ended up in Afghanistan used against our own military. It was July 25th, 2012 when a Chinook helicopter was taken down by one of our own Stingers, but the idiot Taliban didn’t arm the missile and the Chinook didn’t explode, but had to land anyway. An ordnance team recovered the serial number off the missile which led back to a cache of Stingers being kept in Qatar by the CIA.
Obama and Hillary were now in full panic mode and Stevens was sent in to retrieve the rest of the Stingers. This was a “do-or-die” mission, which explains the stand down orders given to multiple commando teams.
It was the State Dept, not the CIA that supplied them to our sworn enemies, because Petraeus wouldn’t supply these deadly weapons due to their potential use on commercial aircraft. Then, Obama threw Gen. Petraeus under the bus after he refused to testify that he OK’d the BS talking points about a spontaneous uprising due to a Youtube video.
Obama and Hillary committed treason…and THIS is what the investigation is all about, why she had a private server, (in order to delete the digital evidence), and why Obama, two weeks after the attack, told the UN that the attack was because of a Youtube video, even though everyone knew it was not.
Further…the Taliban knew that this administration aided and abetted the enemy without Congressional approval when Boehner created the Select Cmte, and the Taliban began pushing the Obama Administration for the release of 5 Taliban Generals.
Bowe Bergdahl was just a pawn…everyone KNEW he was a traitor. So we have a traitor as POTUS that is not only corrupt, but compromised…and a woman that is a serial liar, perjured herself multiple times at the Hearing whom is running for POTUS.
Only the Dems, with their hands out, palms up, will support her.
Perhaps this is why no military aircraft was called in…because the administration knew our enemies had Stingers.
__________________________

Confirmed: Obama Sent Weapons to Muslim Terrorists in Benghazi
Submitted by IWB, on March 1st, 2016

One of the few interesting items in the New York Times’ whitewash of Hillary and Obama’s illegal Libyan war is the confirmation of weapons shipments.

Obama ultimately took her side, according to the administration officials who described the debate. After he signed a secret document called a presidential finding, approving acovert operation, a list of approved weaponry was drawn up. The shipments arranged by the United States and other Western countries generally arrived through the port of Benghazi and airports in eastern Libya, a Libyan rebel commander said.
“Humvees, counterbattery radar, TOW missiles was the highest end we talked about,” one State Department official recalled. “We were definitely giving them lethal assistance. We’d crossed that line.”
Read More...

“We had a dream,” said Mr. Jibril, who served as Libya’s first interim prime minister. “And to be honest with you, we had a golden opportunity to bring this country back to life. Unfortunately, that dream was shattered.”

“I think at one point I said, ‘Can I finish the two wars I’m already in before you guys go looking for a third one?’” Mr. Gates recalled. Colonel Qaddafi, he said, “was not a threat to us anywhere. He was a threat to his own people, and that was about it.”
Read More...
Some senior intelligence officials had deep misgivings about what would happen if Colonel Qaddafi lost control. In recent years, the Libyan dictator had begun aiding the United States in its fight against Al Qaeda in North Africa.
“He was a thug in a dangerous neighborhood,” said Michael T. Flynn, a retired Army lieutenant general who headed the Defense Intelligence Agency at the time. “But he was keeping order.”
Read more...

The Libyans saw the threatened intervention not as a noble act to save lives, as Mrs. Clinton portrayed it, but in far darker terms. After all, Colonel Qaddafi, fearing the fate of Saddam Hussein, had abandoned his nuclear program and was sharing intelligence with the C.I.A. in the fight against Al Qaeda. Mrs. Clinton herself had publicly welcomed one of the leader’s sons to the State Department in 2009.
Now Colonel Qaddafi saw deep treachery, ingratitude and mercantile revenge. He railed to anyone who would listen that he was Libya’s only bulwark against extremism, that without him the country would become a terrorist haven.
Read more...
________________________

Trey Gowdy Says Hillary Clinton Made a Big False Claim During CNN Interview — and He Just Released the Proof
Jul. 8, 2015 5:02pm
Jason Howerton

Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), chairman of the House Select Committee on Benghazi, released its March 4 subpoena of Hillary Clinton on Wednesday after the former secretary of state claimed on CNN that she “never had a subpoena.”

“The committee has issued several subpoenas, but I have not sought to make them public,” Gowdy said in a statement. “I would not make this one public now, but after Secretary Clinton falsely claimed the committee did not subpoena her, I have no choice in order to correct the inaccuracy.”

(House Select Committee on Benghazi)

Gowdy argued the Benghazi committee “immediately subpoenaed Clinton personally after learning the full extent of her unusual email arrangement with herself” and “would have done so earlier if the State Department or Clinton had been forthcoming that State did not maintain custody of her records and only Secretary Clinton herself had her records when Congress first requested them.”

During the first national TV interview of her 2016 presidential campaign, Clinton accused her interviewer of making “so many assumptions” about her private email controversy and defended her handling of emails during her tenure at the State Department. You can watch her comments in full context here.

“I’ve never had a subpoena,” she added. “There’s nothing, again. Let’s take a deep breath here. Everything I did was permitted by law and regulation.”
In his Wednesday statement, Gowdy also questioned the “curious” timing of Clinton’s decision to “delete and attempt to permanently destroy emails.”

“The Secretary left office in February of 2013. By her own admission she did not delete or destroy emails until the fall of 2014, well after this Committee had been actively engaged in securing her emails from the Department of State,” he said. “For 20 months, it was not too burdensome or cumbersome for the Secretary to house records on her personal server but mysteriously in the fall of 2014 she decided to delete and attempt to permanently destroy those same records.”

House Speaker John Boehner also weighed in on the matter on Twitter Wednesday:
___________________________

Judicial Watch: Defense, State Department Documents Reveal Obama Administration Knew that al Qaeda Terrorists Had Planned Benghazi Attack 10 Days in Advance
MAY 18, 2015

Administration knew three months before the November 2012 presidential election of ISIS plans to establish a caliphate in Iraq

Administration knew of arms being shipped from Benghazi to Syria

(Washington, DC) – 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.” The group’s headquarters was set up with the approval of a “member of the Muslim brother hood movement…where they have large caches of weapons. Some of these caches are disguised by feeding troughs for livestock. They have SA-7 and SA-23/4 MANPADS…they train almost every day focusing on religious lessons and scriptures including three lessons a day of jihadist ideology.”

The Defense Department reported the group maintained written documents, in “a small rectangular room, approximately 12 meters by 6 meters…that contain information on all of the AQ activity in Libya.”

(Azuz is again blamed for the Benghazi attack in an October 2012 DIA document.)

The DOD documents also contain the first official documentation that the Obama administration knew that weapons were being shipped from the Port of Benghazi to rebel troops in Syria. An October 2012 report confirms:

Weapons from the former Libya military stockpiles were shipped from the port of Benghazi, Libya to the Port of Banias and the Port of Borj Islam, Syria. The weapons shipped during late-August 2012 were Sniper rifles, RPG’s, and 125 mm and 155mm howitzers missiles.

During the immediate aftermath of, and following the uncertainty caused by, the downfall of the ((Qaddafi)) regime in October 2011 and up until early September of 2012, weapons from the former Libya military stockpiles located in Benghazi, Libya were shipped from the port of Benghazi, Libya to the ports of Banias and the Port of Borj Islam, Syria. The Syrian ports were chosen due to the small amount of cargo traffic transiting these two ports. The ships used to transport the weapons were medium-sized and able to hold 10 or less shipping containers of cargo.

The DIA document further details:

The weapons shipped from Syria during late-August 2012 were Sniper rifles, RPG’s and 125mm and 155mm howitzers missiles. The numbers for each weapon were estimated to be: 500 Sniper rifles, 100 RPG launchers with 300 total rounds, and approximately 400 howitzers missiles [200 ea – 125mm and 200ea – 155 mm.]

The heavily redacted document does not disclose who was shipping the weapons.

Another DIA report, written in August 2012 (the same time period the U.S. was monitoring weapons flows from Libya to Syria), said that the opposition in Syria was driven by al Qaeda and other extremist Muslim groups: “the Salafist, the Muslim Brotherhood, and AQI are the major forces driving the insurgency in Syria.” The growing sectarian direction of the war was predicted to have dire consequences for Iraq, which included the “grave danger” of the rise of ISIS:

The deterioration of the situation has dire consequences on the Iraqi situation and are as follows:

This creates the ideal atmosphere for AQI [al Qaeda Iraq] to return to its old pockets in Mosul and Ramadi, and will provide a renewed momentum under the presumption of unifying the jihad among Sunni Iraq and Syria, and the rest of the Sunnis in the Arab world against what it considers one enemy, the dissenters. ISI could also declare an Islamic state through its union with other terrorist organizations in Iraq and Syria, which will create grave danger in regards to unifying Iraq and the protection of its territory.

Some of the “dire consequences” are blacked out but the DIA presciently warned one such consequence would be the “renewing facilitation of terrorist elements from all over the Arab world entering into Iraqi Arena.”

From a separate lawsuit, the State Department produced a document created the morning after the Benghazi attack by Hillary Clinton’s offices, and the Operations Center in the Office of the Executive Secretariat that was sent widely through the agency, including to Joseph McManus (then-Hillary Clinton’s executive assistant). At 6:00 am, a few hours after the attack, the top office of the State Department sent a “spot report” on the “Attack on U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi” that makes no mention of videos or demonstrations:

Four COM personnel were killed and three were wounded in an attack by dozens of fighters on the U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi beginning approximately 1550 Eastern Time….

The State Department has yet to turn over any documents from the secret email accounts of Hillary Clinton and other top State Department officials.

“These documents are jaw-dropping. No wonder we had to file more FOIA lawsuits and wait over two years for them. If the American people had known the truth – that Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and other top administration officials knew that the Benghazi attack was an al-Qaeda terrorist attack from the get-go – and yet lied and covered this fact up – Mitt Romney might very well be president. And why would the Obama administration continue to support the Muslim Brotherhood even after it knew it was tied to the Benghazi terrorist attack and to al Qaeda? These documents also point to connection between the collapse in Libya and the ISIS war – and confirm that the U.S. knew remarkable details about the transfer of arms from Benghazi to Syrian jihadists,” stated Tom Fitton, Judicial Watch president. “These documents show that the Benghazi cover-up has continued for years and is only unraveling through our independent lawsuits. The Benghazi scandal just got a whole lot worse for Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.”

Sign Up for Updates!

REPUBLICANS IN THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON BENGHAZI FAILED TO BRING UP THE REAL CRIMINAL SCANDALS IN LIBYA
November 3, 2015 by Frank de Varona - Bear Witness Central
Hillary Clinton testified before the House of Representative Select Committee on Benghazi on October 22, 2015.
Republicans in the House of Representative Select Committee on Benghazi missed a unique opportunity to inform the American people regarding the true and scandalous events in Libya. To assist the Select Committee on Benghazi, Roger Aronoff wrote an article titled “Questions to Watch for at Thursday’s Benghazi Hearing” which was published in Accuracy in Media.org on October 21, 2015.
Aronoff, a great patriot, set up the Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi (CCB) in September 2013 to investigate the causes and the circumstances involved in the attacks of September 11, 2012 on the U.S. diplomatic compound and the nearby CIA Annex in Benghazi, Libya. The members of the commission included former CIA officers, retired military from the different branches of the Armed Forces, journalists, and defense consultants.
Aronoff criticized the recent statements by Representative Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) and Representative Richard Hanna (R-NY) that indicated that the House of Representative Select Committee on Benghazi was set up to hurt Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. He said that “despite Hillary Clinton new attitude of defiance—acting as if these recent statements by the two Republicans have somehow proven that this has been a political witch-hunt all along—they proved nothing of the sort.”
Aronoff appeared recently on The Blaze with Dana Loesch and explained the following: “While the failure to either provide sufficient security for Ambassador Chris Stevens, or to remove him before the attacks occurred on September 11, 2012, is an important issue, it is certainly not the only one that Mrs. Clinton must answer for. Two new articles out in the last day present powerful arguments and lines of questioning that should be pursued. One is from The Washington Times, which lays out new evidence showing how the U.S. facilitated the flow of arms to militia groups in Libya, many of which went to al-Qaeda linked groups. This violated both American law and a U.N. resolution. The other article is by Nancy Youssef in The Daily Beast, where she questions the wisdom, motives and strategy that led the U.S. and NATO into the war in Libya in the first place. She points out that while President Obama may have been reluctant at first, with no stated plans to remove Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi that is exactly what happened, with no plans in place for what would come after Qaddafi. And what has followed is a failed state.”
Aronoff wrote that both of these points were made in the Interim Report by our Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi (CCB) of April 2014 and received little attention at the time. Many in the media kept asking what more was there to learn. Aronoff pointed out that the CCB had prepared a list of questions that he hoped would be asked during the House of Representative Select Committee on Benghazi hearing on October 22, 2015. Below are the questions prepared by the Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi to be asked to Hillary Clinton:
Before
“When, how and why did the Obama administration and the State Department decide to back the overthrow of the Qaddafi regime?
Why did you refuse Saif Qaddafi’s phone call about the willingness of his father to negotiate a truce rather than subject his country and himself to the impending attack by NATO forces?
When and how was the decision made that the administration officially would facilitate the delivery of weapons to known Libyan al-Qaeda militias like the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG)?
Did you and the Obama administration believe that the Presidential Intelligence Finding of March 2011 was legally sufficient to overcome the otherwise felonious provision by the U.S. government of material support to terrorism? Which legal authorities by name provided this advice to you?
Exactly when and specifically which Congressional members were briefed on the administration’s decision to overthrow Qaddafi, back the Libyan Muslim Brotherhood-led rebels, and facilitate the delivery of weapons to Libyan al-Qaeda-linked militias?
Why did approximately half of your emails on Libya, that the committee has only recently received, come from Sidney Blumenthal, who President Obama had forbidden you to hire at the State Department?
Why did we maintain the Special Mission Compound in Benghazi when others, such as the British and the Red Cross had pulled out because of the security situation?
Why did you ignore an internal State Department audit on the compound when it first opened which concluded that they should either beef up the security or close it?
Please name and identify by affiliation the top Libyan rebel commanders with whom Christopher Stevens, the official U.S. government envoy to those rebels, collaborated during the 2011 Libyan revolution and explain how these commanders were selected.
Please describe in detail the weapons procurement and delivery process by which arms were acquired, funded, transported and distributed to the Libyan rebels in 2011.
Please describe in detail the weapons buy-back and collection program in Libya in 2012, including which U.S. agency had the lead for that program, how funds were disbursed for such weapons, where and how they were stored, their transport on exactly which/whose ships, and where those ships and their weapons cargo went after they departed from Libya.
By allowing the flow of arms to groups in Libya that we knew were affiliated with al Qaeda, weren’t we in effect switching sides in the War on Terror?
Were you personally aware of multiple warnings that indicated an Islamic terror attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi was likely or in potential planning stages?
Why were all of Stevens’ requests for increased security turned down and in-country security forces drawn down? (We now know that there were over 600 requests for assistance that were denied!)
Did you see, or were you made aware of the Ayman al-Zawahiri video-taped warning, issued on jihadi websites on 10 September 2012, that apparently gave the green light for the attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi? If so, when? If not, why not?
What action did you take when you received word of a 10 day advanced notice that an attack on our facilities in Benghazi was going to take place?
What additional security measures did you as Secretary of State order for missions across North Africa and/or elsewhere once the American Embassy in Cairo warned that Muslim anger was building over the airing on Egyptian TV on 9 September 2012 of a clip from the YouTube video “Innocence of Muslims?”
Why was an order given to Ambassador Stevens’ Diplomatic Security Service (DSS) personnel to store their weapons in a separate location in the compound?
During
What about your 10 p.m. phone call with President Obama on the night of the attack? Why did the State Department proceed to issue a statement shortly thereafter citing the video as the likely cause of the attack?
Who was responsible for making sure the car was parked outside the safe room window as a key part of the escape plan for the ambassador?
Why were the Marine Fast teams at Rota naval base in Spain held up and made to put on civilian clothes?
What classified equipment and material were taken from the compound?
Please describe in chronological detail where you were, Secretary Clinton, throughout the night of 11-12 September 2012.
Continue Reading Next Pages: 1 2 3 4 … | Next →
________________________

May 1, 2015

Hillary Alert: New Emails Mean Benghazi Isn’t Over
By Eric Pianin

Hillary Clinton tried to take a break from controversy this week with a speech at Columbia University in New York voicing her concern about civil unrest in Baltimore and her prescription for reforming the criminal justice system.

But for the former Secretary of State and leading Democratic presidential candidate, renewed controversy is always just around the corner.

Related: Like Indelible Ink, Benghazi Is Not Going Away for Hillary

On Thursday, House Republicans announced that their once floundering probe of Clinton’s conduct surrounding the 2012 terrorist attacks on a U.S. diplomatic outpost in Benghazi, Libya just got another important boost: The State Department handed over 4,000 pages of new documents to a select House committee investigating the tragic attacks that killed four Americans, including Ambassador Christopher J. Stevens.

“The Benghazi Committee continues to build the most comprehensive and complete record on what happened before, during and after the Benghazi terrorist attacks," Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC), chair of the panel, declared in a statement.

"Contrary to those who said all had been asked and answered, the Benghazi Committee has shown there is more still for Congress to consider. The committee will provide the final, definitive accounting of what happened with regards to Benghazi, reaching conclusions based solely on facts," he added.

Related: Sanders Says He'll Seek Democratic Nomination For President

The disclosure of the new documents came on the same day that Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), a favorite of many liberal Democrats, announced that he would challenge Clinton for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination.

Clinton said she welcomed Sanders’ entry into the race, just weeks after she formally announced she was running. But Sanders, a self-described Democratic socialist, made it clear he intends to sharply criticize her 2002 vote in the Senate to support the U.S. invasion of Iraq – a vote she later acknowledged was a mistake.

Sanders also promised to contrast his views with those of Clinton’s on the Keystone XL oil pipeline project and President Obama’s push for the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal -- two matters that he and other liberal Democrats oppose but that Clinton has been dancing around.

After seven previous investigations by various congressional committees and the State Department into the events surrounding the Benghazi killings, it looked as if the Republicans were once again drilling a dry hole. Yet House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) and other Republicans were determined to try again to unearth evidence that Clinton was somehow negligent in responding to complaints about inadequate security at the compound or failed to adequately respond to reports of the fiery attacks by terrorists.

Related: How the Clinton Scandals Can Bring Down the Democrats

Gowdy had once indicated he wanted to finish his investigation by the end of the year – a potential blessing for Clinton who could finally put another unpleasant chapter of her career behind her before the 2016 presidential campaign really started to heat up.

That was before the The New York Times first revealed in early March that Clinton had used her private email and server to conduct official State Department business and that she had deleted tens of thousands of personal messages after leaving the Obama administration in early 2013.

Last week, Boehner threatened to subpoena her email server in search of additional evidence about her handling of the Benghazi attacks. At the same time, Gowdy said in a letter to Clinton’s lawyer that she better begin preparing for two separate appearances on Capitol Hill: one during the week of May 18 to determine whether the House panel had all the relevant documents and emails it needs and the second, no later than June 18 if committee members are satisfied they have all relevant information, to question Clinton again on her handling of the Benghazi crisis.

Related: How Hillary’s E-Mail Mess Revived Benghazi

With the State Department’s decision to turn over 4,000 additional pages concerning the Benghazi tragedy and Clinton’s involvement, there are certain to be additional leads to follow that can easily push the investigation well into next year.

In fact, it wouldn’t be surprising if the committee issued its final, critical report just before the Democratic National Convention meets in Philadelphia next July to nominate a candidate.

The documents were provided by the State Department’s Accountability Review Board (ARB) investigation into the deadly assault on the diplomatic outpost. They include, among other things, emails and interview summaries, a congressional source told The Hill yesterday. This apparently was the first time that the State Department has turned over ARB documents to Congress.

"Getting this production from State's Benghazi ARB is an important part of ensuring the committee has access to all the facts," according to Gowdy.

The State Department said that the new trove of documents from its own investigation into the deadly 2012 attack does not change the "essential facts" known about the attack. And a Democratic committee aide told The Hill that while the select committee indeed has received the work papers, they shouldn’t start popping the champagne corks just yet.

"Not surprisingly, the work papers support the unanimous findings of the Board, which identified no evidence to support claims that Secretary Clinton ordered a stand-down, personally denied security requests, oversaw a covert weapons program, or any of the other wild claims Republicans have been making for months," the aide said..

But Gowdy and other Republican committee members almost certainly will come up with a much different interpretation after studying the documents. It wouldn’t be the first time the administration provided Republican controlled committees with documents it considered relatively harmless, only to have the Republicans extract some juicy evidence.

The disclosure of the fresh set of documents came on the same day that Rep. Elijah Cummings (MD.), the special committee’s ranking Democrat, criticized the GOP for touting the committee’s work in fundraising.
___________________________

Photo by Mike Windle/Getty Images for Paramount Pictures

Benghazi Warrior UNLOADS On Hillary After She Scolds White House For Hesitating ‘To Defend A Diplomat’

ByAMANDA PRESTIGIACOMO
@AMANDAPRESTO
July 20, 2018 Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Thursday night received a pointed tongue lashing from Benghazi warrior Kris Paronto after Clinton audaciously scolded the White House for not defending a U.S. diplomat to her liking.
Paronto is a former Special Forces officer, a surviving member of a six-man security team who claims he was given a "stand down" order from a top CIA officer following distress calls from the State Department concerning a terrorist attack on the U.S. compound in Benghazi, Libya, as noted by Politico. Four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens, were murdered during the attack; Hillary Clinton was serving as Secretary of State at the time.
Hillary was reacting to White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders' remarks regarding the president and former U.S. Ambassador Michael McFaul. "McFaul has been listed by the Russian government as a person of interest in the Bill Browder/Russia financial scam, and President Trump allegedly told President Putin on Monday that the U.S. would consider sending McFaul and Browder to Moscow for 'questioning,'" reports Real Clear Politics.
"Ambassador [McFaul] is a patriot who has spent his career standing up for America. To see the White House even hesitate to defend a diplomat is deeply troubling," wrote the twice-failed presidential candidate in a tweet.
Obviously, such criticism about hesitation in defending a U.S. diplomat coming from Hillary Clinton is incredibly galling, especially for Mr. Paronto, who lived through the horror.
"Are you f’n kidding me [Hillary Clinton]?!!!" wrote Paronto via Twitter. "You left Ambassador Stevens and us to die in Benghazi then spewed lie after lie to the family members of my dead teammates and to the world to cover it up and now you have the nerve to talk about defending diplomats?! You are disgusting!"
"There is no sensationalism in that: We were told to ‘stand down,'" Paronto toldHouse Select Committee in 2013. "Those words were used verbatim — 100 percent. … If the truth of it affects someone’s political career? Well, I’m sorry. It happens."
_________________________

A federal judge orders that information regarding what former President Barack Obama knew about the Benghazi attacks be released after a FOIA request from Judicial Watch. (Alex Wong/Getty Images)

Federal judge orders State Dept. to release Clinton emails showing what Obama knew about Benghazi
Chris Enloe 5 hours

A federal judge has ordered the State Department to release previously redacted information in Hillary Clinton emails concerning the Obama administration’s response in the immediate aftermath of the terror attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi in 2012.
Judicial Watch, a conservative government watchdog that has closely followed the Benghazi investigation, announced U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson’s order on Friday. According to the group, Jackson ordered the State Department turn over “eight identical paragraphs” of information redacted from two Clinton emails on Sept. 13, 2012.
The contents of the emails include summaries of conservations then-President Barack Obama had with leaders of Egypt and Libya following the attack two days earlier, which left four Americans dead, including the U.S. Ambassador to Libya, Christopher Stevens.
The subject line on the emails read: “FW: Quick Summary of POTUS Calls to Presidents of Libya and Egypt.”
The emails, once released, will prove what Clinton and Obama knew and when they knew it, according to Judicial Watch.
“The full emails may reveal what former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and President Obama knew about the September 11, 2012, terror attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi,” they wrote in a press release.
The emails, which were on Clinton’s unprotected home server, were originally unreleased by the State Department after they claimed the emailed deserved a “deliberative process” Freedom of Information Act exemption.
However, Jackson personally reviewed the documents and said they didn’t meet the criteria for the exemption. In response, the State Department asked Jackson to reconsider her order, arguing the emails were mistakenly claimed exempt under “deliberative process” and should instead be ruled exempt under a different FOIA exception, the classified information exemption.
But Judicial Watch argues there was no mistake in the exemption status, but rather evidence the State Department was deliberately trying to protect Clinton by “avoiding identifying emails on Clinton’s unofficial, non-secure email server as classified.”
Judicial Watch said in their suit:
An agency’s deliberate withholding of a FOIA claim, either to gain a tactical advantage or, as appears to be the case here, to protect the agency’s interests and those of its former head, is “a motive undoubtedly inconsistent with FOIA’s broad remedial purpose …”
In a statement, Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton appealed to President Donald Trump and questioned if he knew his State Department is still trying to protect Clinton.
“Does President Trump know his State and Justice Departments are still trying to provide cover for Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama?” Fitton said. “An extraordinary court ruling that could result in key answers about the Benghazi outrage is being opposed by the Trump administration.”
“This may well be an example of the ‘deep state’ trying to get away with a cover up – if so then the Trump administration must put a stop to it,” he argued.
Judicial Watch filed their original suit in Sept. 2014. They have obtained hundreds of previously hidden documents concerning Benghazi through FOIA requests.
_________________________

HILLARY TRIES TO EVADE BENGHAZI LAWSUIT LIABILITY
Wants to overturn judgment because 'she does not believe she is in default'
Published: 15 hours ago
BOB UNRUH About | Email | Archive
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
Responding to a federal court’s ruling that she defaulted in a wrongful-death claim against her by missing a filing deadline, Hillary Clinton is claiming she didn’t know she had been served with a lawsuit until it was too late.
The complaint was brought by the parents of two of the Americans killed by Islamic terrorists in Benghazi.
WND reported earlier this month that the federal court declared Clinton in default. The ruling, however, did not immediately establish liability, and she has responded to the court that there are several reasons she should be given a pass for missing the deadline.
WND reported in August the claims were brought by the parents of two of the Americans killed by Islamic terrorists in Benghazi.
The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia by lawyer Larry Klayman of Freedom Watch USA on behalf of Patricia Smith, the mother of Sean Smith, and Charles Woods, the father of Tyrone Woods. The parents cite the FBI’s determination that Clinton’s handling of classified information through the use of a nonsecure, private email server was “extremely careless.”

Smith and Woods were killed in the Sept. 11, 2012, jihadist attack on the American compound in Benghazi. While Clinton and other Obama administration officials were publicly blaming the deaths on a response to an obscure YouTube video, internal communications show they knew immediately that it was a terrorist attack.
The wrongful death claim also alleges defamation and intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress.
“Having used a secret private email server that we now know was used to communicate with Ambassador Christopher Stevens with confidential and classified government information, and which we also now know was likely hacked by hostile adversaries such as Iran, Russia, China and North Korea aligning with terrorist groups, it is clear that Hillary Clinton allegedly negligently and recklessly gave up the classified location of the plaintiffs’ sons, resulting in a deadly terrorist attack that took their lives. It is no coincidence that covert State Department/CIA operations were being run out of Benghazi,” Klayman said.
“To add insult to deadly injury, Hillary Clinton told the plaintiffs that their sons were killed as the result of a video mocking the Islamic prophet Mohammed when she knew that they were murdered by Muslim terrorists. When the families exposed her lies, she called them liars to protect her reputation and to further her own presidential ambitions. She thus defamed the parents of fallen heroes Tyrone Woods and Sean Smith, and committed other wrongful acts, as alleged in the complaint.
“Hillary Clinton has been thus far fortunate, throughout her career, to escape the long arm of the law, believing and acting as if she is above the law. This time, her ‘luck’ has run out.”
Clinton said in an email to her daughter immediately after the attack that it was an act of terrorism.
Deputy court clerk Reginald Johnson recently signed a document in the case stating, “It appearing that the above-named defendant(s) failed to plead or otherwise defend this action though duly served with summons and copy of the complaint on 8/11/2016, and an affidavit on behalf of the plaintiff having been filed, it is this 9th day of September, 2016, declared that defendant(s) is/are in default.”
Now Klayman has filed a response to Clinton’s claims that she should be exempted from some basic court procedural requirements.
To her claim that she didn’t know, he wrote: “Process server Jackson Johnson stated that, on August 11, 2016, he delivered a copy of the required documentation to defendant Clinton’s campaign headquarters. … This was done only after plaintiffs had attempted to serve defendant Clinton personally at her Washington, D.C., residence. There, defendant Clinton’s U.S. Secret Service contingent, at defendant Clinton’s obvious direction, advised the process serve to serve defendant Clinton at her campaign headquarters.”
He continued, “Only when defendant Clinton’s campaign staff, obviously at her direction, attempted to evade service of process were the documents left ‘in the possession of a security officer’ who ‘did not provide his name.'”
Further, her argument that she should be exempt from a 21-day time limit to respond because she is a federal employee is erroneous.
“Much of plaintiffs’ cause of action for defamation is based entirely on statements made by defendant Clinton after she had left the State Department. These statements at issue were made in either 2015 or 2016 during defendant Clinton’s campaign for president,” the motion argued.
Klayman also wrote that her claims that her default was not “willful” because she didn’t know a security guard had accepted copies of the complaint doesn’t make sense.
The process server, for example, “expressly stated that defendant Clinton and her staff were ‘unwilling to present themselves to accept service of process’ of the summons and complaint,” the filing continued.
And Clinton’s counsel even admitted being aware of the lawsuit “shortly after its filing.”
“Lastly, and perhaps most incredibly, defendant Clinton and her counsel have flouted and trifled with the court’s process and on their own decided that defendant Clinton is not in default, and is above being subject to Local Rule 7(b) which mandates that any motion to vacate entry of default be accompanied by ‘a verified answer presenting a defense sufficient to bar the claim in whole or in part,'” Klayman wrote.
“She does not believe that she is in default, despite the fact that the clerk of this court has made the opposition determination,” he said.
Klayman told WND that Clinton’s lack of response to the claims was an indication of her level of concern for them: She “just doesn’t care.”
Patricia Smith said in a speech at the Republican National Convention in July, “I blame Hillary Clinton personally for the death of my son.”
The lawsuit notes the FBI found Clinton, “at a minimum, was ‘extremely careless’ in handling confidential and classified government information and ‘there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information.'”
The case alleges that Clinton’s unsecure personal email setup allowed “foreign powers including, but not limited to Russia, Iran, China and North Korea” to obtain information about the Americans.
“Immediately after the attack, defendant Clinton, in an effort to save the re-election chances of President Barack Obama, and in turn, her own chances at the 2016 presidency, lied to plaintiffs and the public at large that the Benghazi attacks were caused by Islamic reaction over an anti-Muslim YouTube video … these lies were perpetrated despite the fact that she knew immediately that this video was actually not the cause of the attack – information that she shared with the prime minister of Egypt and her own daughter, Chelsea Clinton, but hid from plaintiffs and the public at large.
“Clinton even promised plaintiffs that the person responsible for the video would be arrested. … Woods recorded the conversation with defendant Clinton contemporaneously in his diary.”
Now, the case explains, Clinton “has gone on a defamatory smear campaign to paint plaintiffs as liars in the public eye in order to discredit plaintiffs, who have been vocal about defendant Clinton’s pattern and practice of dishonesty regarding what caused the Benghazi attack, its aftermath, and the death of their sons.”

Specifically, it charges Islamic terrorists “obtained the information sent and received by defendant Clinton about the location of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and thus the U.S. Department of State and the covert CIA and other government operations in Benghazi and used it to plan, orchestrate, and carry out the horrific and devastating attack on the American diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11, 2012 … resulting in the death of four Americans.”
The case alleges, “Without having access to the compromised information that was obtained due to defendant Clinton’s ‘extremely careless’ handling of confidential information, the Islamic terrorist perpetrators of the Benghazi attack would not have been able to carry out the attack due to lack of information.”
The case demands a jury trial and seeks general, special, actual, compensatory and punitive damages.
In a commentary about the case, Klayman wrote: “Indeed, after the fatal attack on the consulate in Benghazi, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told her own daughter, Chelsea Clinton, a director to the racketeering enterprise known as the Clinton Foundation (see RICO complaint at FreedomWatchUSA.org), that the massacre occurred at the hands of terrorists, not a simple video mocking the degenerate Islamic prophet Muhammad. Hillary Clinton also said the same thing to the prime minister of Egypt. Later, however, Hillary Clinton lied to Pat Smith and Charles Woods, the parents of fallen heroes Sean Smith and Tyrone Woods. When Pat Smith and Charles Woods sought to correct this falsity by disclosing publicly what Clinton had told them, she branded them as liars to further her own political and presidential ambitions.”
He explained public officials are immune from personal liability, but only if the “alleged misconduct did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional law of which a reasonable person would have known.”
“It balances two important interests – the need to hold public officials accountable when they exercise power irresponsibly or incompetently and the need to shield officials from liabilities when they perform their duties reasonably,” he said.
Hillary for prosecution, not president! Join the sizzling campaign to put Mrs. Clinton where she really belongs

Read more at
__________________________

Benghazi shocker! Did Hillary stop rescue?DECEMBER 9, 2015
A newly released email proves that the United States military was ready to launch a rescue operation that could have saved American lives at the Benghazi diplomatic compound in 2012.
But the operation apparently needed the go-ahead from the Hillary Clinton-run State Department and the troops were not deployed on time.
The email, obtained by Judicial Watch in a Freedom of Information Act request, is likely to reignite heavy criticism of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s inaction in the 2012 Benghazi terror attack that claimed the lives of four Americans.
And it raises questions about whether Clinton and other Obama Administration officials were telling the truth when they claimed they did everything in their power to protect American diplomats.
The email arrived at the State Department at 7:19 pm EST on September 11, 2012, just hours after the attacks began and before the compound was overrun. The sender, a State Department employee named Jeremy Bash, complained that during the crisis he was unable to get any of the agency’s top brass on the phone.
The message was sent to Clinton’s close team including Clinton’s Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Wendy Sherman, Deputy Chief of Staff Jacob Sullivan, and Deputy Secretary of State Thomas Nides. It notifies the Clinton team of our troops’ ability to respond quickly, saying that U.S. forces were “spinning up” and ready to deploy in support of the Benghazi compound.
The email also asked Clinton’s State Department to clear any necessary approvals with the host nation of Libya before the rescue operation could begin.
And then nothing happened.
U.S. rescue teams were not deployed until several hours after the email was sent, after Ambassador Christopher Stevens and Sean Smith were already dead. The other two Americans were killed in a follow-up mortar attack that night at a nearby CIA compound.
The go-ahead response times for U.S. rescue teams has been heavily criticized in the past, and this email may show that blame of the delay rests on Clinton and her State Department team.
Previously, an independent review convened after the attacks deeply faulted State Department officials in Washington for their poor communication and cooperation as diplomats in Libya warned that Benghazi was growing more and more dangerous.
The Accountability Review Board cited a “lack of transparency, responsiveness, and leadership at senior bureau levels” and “shortfalls in Washington coordination” contributing to a “woefully insufficient” security force at the compound.
The fewer than half-dozen armed diplomatic security personnel at the compound “were not well served by their leadership in Washington,” the board said.
The email can be ready in it’s entirety here.
The Associated Press contributed to this article
__________________________

Judicial Watch: Newly Released Documents Confirm White House Officials Set Hillary Clinton’s Benghazi Response
JUNE 29, 2015

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch today released new State Department documents showing that Hillary Clinton and the State Department’s response to the Benghazi attack was immediately determined by top Obama White House officials, particularly Ben Rhodes, then-White House deputy strategic communications adviser, and Bernadette Meehan, a spokesperson for the National Security Council. The new documents were forced from the U.S. State Department under court order in a Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:14-cv-01511)).

Judicial Watch filed a FOIA request on June 13, 2014, and subsequently a lawsuit on September 4, 2014, seeking:

Any and all records concerning, regarding, or related to notes, updates, or reports created in response to the September 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya. This request includes, but is not limited to, notes taken by then Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton or employees of the Office of the Secretary of State during the attack and its immediate aftermath.

A September 11, 2012, email sent at 6:21 p.m. by State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland to Meehan, Under Secretary for Management Patrick F. Kennedy, and Clinton’s personal aide Jacob Sullivan shows that the State Department deferred to the White House on the official response to the Benghazi attack. Referencing pending press statements by Barack Obama and Clinton, Nuland wrote: “We are holding for Rhodes clearance. BMM, pls advise asap.”

Meehan responded three minutes later, at 6:24 p.m.: “Ben is good with these and is on with Jake now too.”

Rhodes sent an email at 9:48 p.m. to senior White House and State officials on the issue: “We should let the State Department statement be our comment for the night.”

An email from Meehan, sent at 10:15 p.m. on September 11 to Rhodes, Nuland, Sullivan, Kennedy and Clinton aide Philippe Reines, further confirms the White House approval of Hillary Clinton’s statement tying the Benghazi terrorist attack to an Internet video: “All, the Department of State just released the following statement. Per Ben [Rhodes’] email below, this should be the USG comment for the night.”

The “USG comment” turned out to be Clinton’s notorious public statement, made hours after the initial terrorist attack, falsely suggesting that the Benghazi assault was a “response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet.”

Rhodes emailed Meehan, Sullivan and Reines at 11:45 p.m. on September 11, writing, “Fyi – we are considering releasing this tonight.” The next line is redacted. The email also included a “Readout of President’s Call to Secretary Clinton,” the contents of which are also completely redacted.

On September 12, the day after the attack, Meehan sent an email to Obama administration officials announcing that “to ensure we are all in sync on messaging for the rest of the day, Ben Rhodes will host a conference call for USG communicators on this chain at 9:15AM ET today.”

The new documents show that the Obama administration engaged domestic and foreign Islamist groups and foreign nationals to push the Internet video narrative. The day after the attack, Rashad Hussain, the Obama administration’s special envoy to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), sent an email to Ambassador Ufuk Gokcen, the OIC’s ambassador to the United Nations, and Cenk Uraz, an official with the OIC, pushing the video as the cause of the Benghazi attack. The email has the subject line: “Urgent: Anti-Islamic Film and Violence” and reads in part:

I am sure you are considering putting a statement on the film and the related violence. In addition to the condemnation of the disgusting depictions, it will be important to emphasize the need to respond in a way that is consistent with Islamic principles, i.e. not engaging in violence and taking innocent life …

The resulting OIC statement, sent to Hussain by the OIC’s Uraz, linked the film, as requested by the Obama administration, to the Benghazi attack and suggested that the United States restrict free speech in response. The official OIC statement called the film “incitement” and stated that the attack in Benghazi and a demonstration in Cairo “emanated from emotions aroused by a production of a film had hurt [sic] the religious sentiments of Muslims. The two incidents demonstrated serious repercussions of abuse of freedom of expression.” The OIC’s statement referenced its own efforts to criminalize criticism of Islam. Hussain sent the OIC statement immediately to other Obama administration officials, including then-Clinton chief of staff Cheryl Mills, who thanks Hussain for the email.

The State Department withheld communications on September 12, 2012, between Hillary Clinton’s senior aide Huma Abedin and Rashad Hussain about an article passed by him about how “American Muslim leaders” were tying the video to the Benghazi attack. At the time of the Benghazi attack, Abedin had been double-dipping, working as a consultant to outside clients while continuing as a top adviser at State. Abedin’s outside clients included Teneo, a strategic consulting firm co-founded by former Bill Clinton counselor Doug Band. According to Fox News, Abedin earned $355,000 as a consultant for Teneo, in addition to her $135,000 “special government employee” compensation.

The State Department also disclosed a document, dated September 13, 2012, entitled “USG Outreach and Engagement Post Benghazi Attack.” This record details how the Obama administration reached out to domestic groups, foreign groups and governments in a full-court press to tie the video to the Benghazi attack. The document “captures USG efforts to engage outside voices to encourage public statements that denounce the attack make it clear that the anti-Muslim film does not reflect American [sic].” The document highlights the use of Hillary Clinton’s statement tying the terrorist attack to an Internet video. The “outreach” document also highlights “Special Envoy’s engagement” with the OIC and the “Saudi Ambassador.”

The documents show that the Internet video was raised in a September 15 discussion between Hillary Clinton and Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu. The “eyes only” “secret” document was partially declassified. Davutoglu “called the controversial anti-Islam video a ‘clear provocation,’ but added that wise people should not be provoked by it.” The next line is blacked out and the markings show that it will not be declassified until 2027, more than 12 years from now.

Another email, evidently from the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), sent to Meehan and other top White House and administration officials, shows that the administration took no action to deploy military assets almost five hours after the attack begun:

OSD has received queries asking if military assets are being sent to either location [Libya and Egypt]. Have responded “not to our knowledge.”

The State Department referred Judicial Watch to documents in the batch of 55,000 emails allegedly turned over by Hillary Clinton and searched in response to the court order in this lawsuit. These emails were published on the State Department’s web site, but are also available here. In addition, the State Department produced new documents containing Hillary Clinton emails. In one such email (September 11, 2012 at 11:40 p.m.) from Clinton to Nuland, Sullivan and top Clinton aide Cheryl Mills, with the subject line “Chris Smith,” Clinton writes: “Cheryl told me the Libyans confirmed his death. Should we announce tonight or wait until morning?”

Nuland responds: “We need to ck family’s druthers. If they are OK, we should put something out from you tonight.” Mills then replies to Nuland, “Taking S [Secretary of State Hillary Clinton] off.” (Sean Smith, not “Chris Smith” was one of four Americans killed at Benghazi.)

On September 13, 2012, Politico’s Mike Allen sent then-National Security Council Spokesman Tommy Vietor an Independent.co.uk news article entitled “America was warned of embassy attack but did nothing.” The story reported that “senior officials are increasingly convinced” the Benghazi attack was “not the result of spontaneous anger.” Vietor forwarded the story to other top White House and State Department officials, but Vietor’s accompanying comments and the comments of other top Obama appointees are completely redacted. The administration also redacted several emails of top State officials discussing a statement by a Romney campaign spokesman criticizing the “security situation in Libya.”

In April 2014, Judicial Watch first obtained smoking-gun documents showing that it was the Obama White House’s public relations effort that falsely portray the Benghazi consulate terrorist attack as being “rooted in an Internet video, and not a failure of policy.”

The documents include an email by White House operative Ben Rhodes sent on Friday, September 14, 2012, with the subject line: “RE: PREP CALL with Susan, Saturday at 4:00 pm ET.” This “prep” was for Ambassador Susan Rice in advance of her appearances on Sunday news shows to discuss the Benghazi attack and deflect criticism of the administration’s security failures by blaming the attack on spontaneous protests linked to the video.

The email listed as one of the administration’s key talking points:

“Goal”: “To underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure or policy.”

Documents released by Judicial Watch last month further confirm that the Obama administration, including Hillary Clinton, Rice and Obama immediately knew the attack was an al-Qaeda terrorist attack.

“These documents show the Obama White House was behind the big lie, first promoted by Hillary Clinton, that an Internet video caused the Benghazi terrorist attack,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton, “Top White House aide Ben Rhodes, Hillary Clinton, and many key Obama officials pushed others to tie the Internet video to the attacks. It is disturbing that the Obama administration would use Islamist radicals to push the false Benghazi story in a way that would abridge free speech. It is little wonder that Mrs. Clinton and the entire Obama administration have fought so hard to keep these documents from the American people. All evidence now points to Hillary Clinton, with the approval of the White House, as being the source of the Internet video lie.”

Sign Up for Updates!
Read more about 2012 Benghazi terrorist attack, Hillary Clinton

Trey Gowdy

GOP: Clinton announcement won't blunt Benghazi probe Trey Gowdy’s allies say he’s determined to keep the Benghazi Committee from becoming a 2016 battlefield.

By LAUREN FRENCH
4/10/15 4:35 PM EDT
Getty

House Republicans investigating the 2012 terrorist attacks in Benghazi and Hillary Clinton’s email practices as secretary of state said in interviews that her official entry into the presidential race won’t have any bearing on their probes.

But the political stakes of the Clinton congressional investigations are about to skyrocket. Both parties will be watching the committee’s work intently for ammo to use against Clinton or to call foul on the GOP for attempting to smear a presidential contender.

“Secretary Clinton’s decision to seek the presidency of the United States does not and will not impact the work of the committee,” said Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), chairman of the House Select Committee on Benghazi. “The Committee needs to and expects to talk with Secretary Clinton twice, as ensuring the committee has all relevant material is a condition precedent to asking specifically about Libya and Benghazi.”

Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R-Ga.) said the committee is prepared to take criticism from Clinton allies once her campaign launches but won’t be deterred from fully probing the attacks just because she is running for president.

“I don’t think anybody is going to stop her and her camp from saying anything we do is … political. She’ll use this in her campaign,” Westmorelnd said. “It’s not political. We would have had her in a long time ago if we had her emails. This is something she has brought on herself and the State Department brought on.”

But Democrats would like nothing more than an ongoing spectacle of congressional Republicans looking like they’re tripping over themselves to go after Clinton. Avoiding such an atmosphere amid the heightened attention will be a major political challenge for Gowdy, a former U.S. attorney tapped to head the Benghazi panel and the initial investigation into Clinton’s email use.

Read more:

Judge HAMMERS Hillary in Benghazi-ruling SHOCKER (she’s furious!)
DECEMBER 11, 2018

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s inaction that led to the 2012 murder of four Americans in Benghazi may have been covered-up by the mainstream media — but conservative activists cotninue to work for justice even today.
And they just won a major victory.

U.S. District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth ruled in favor of legal watchdog Judicial Watch on Friday and ordered further investigations into Hillary’s illegal private email servers.
Specifically, the judge ruled that both the Department of Justice and the State Department must submit a proposed schedule for discovery on information that could prove Hillary illegally defied Benghazi-related Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests as part of a cover-up — by using her private email set-up.
The State Department must also answer questions on whether former Barack Obama administration insiders acted in “bad faith” by covering-up the existence of the illegal email servers.
That’s some serious bad news for Hillary — and it’s only just the beginning of her legal woes.
While the mainstream media focuses on President Donald Trump’s tweets, the legal battle over the Benghazi cover-up by the Obama administration continues to heat up behind-the-scenes.

The lawsuits related to the Hillary scandal, run by conservative activists, have jumped to the next level in recent weeks. In fact, newly found — previously unknown — emails related to the alleged cover-up, written by Hillary, were cited by Judge Lamberth during his ruling, Judicial Watch reported.
The court ordered the U.S. State Department and conservative activists
… to meet and confer to plan discovery into (a) whether Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email while Secretary of State was an intentional attempt to evade FOIA; (b) whether the State Department’s attempts to settle this case in late 2014 and early 2015 amounted to bad faith; and (c) whether State has adequately searched for records responsive to Judicial Watch’s requests.
That means insiders must cooperate and share information on whether the Obama administration was involved in a cover-up.
In the court order, Lamberth called the botched investigation into Hillary’s email server “one of the gravest modern offenses to government transparency.”
[Obama’s] State and Justice Departments fell far short. So far short that the court questions, even now, whether they are acting in good faith. Did Hillary Clinton use her private email as Secretary of State to thwart this lofty goal [Obama announced standard for transparency]? Was the State Department’s attempt to settle this FOIA case in 2014 an effort to avoid searching – and disclosing the existence of – Clinton’s missing emails? And has State ever adequately searched for records in this case?“Did State know Clinton deemed the Benghazi attack terrorism hours after it happened, contradicting the Obama Administration’s subsequent claim of a protest-gone-awry?” Lamberth later asked in his ruling.
“Did the Department merely fear what might be found? Or was State’s bungling just the unfortunate result of bureaucratic redtape and a failure to communicate?” Lamberth continued.

“To preserve the Department’s integrity, and to reassure the American people their government remains committed to transparency and the rule of law, this suspicion cannot be allowed to fester,” the court ruled.
Judicial Watch released the following video in response to the historic ruling --
__________________________

Weekly Update:
Big Benghazi Scandal News
MAY 05, 2017

Emails Reveal More Instances of Clinton Using Unsecure Email Server for Classified Info
JW Releases First Set of Numbers on President Trump Travel: Air Force One Costs for Two Trips: $1,281,420
Court Rules State Department Must Release Clinton Emails Detailing Obama Response to Benghazi

Emails Reveal More Instances of Clinton Using Unsecure Email Server for Classified Info
This week, federal prosecutors were given more reasons to prosecute Hillary Clinton.
We have released 894 pages of State Department documents that include previously unreleased email exchanges in which Clinton’s top aide Huma Abedin sent Clinton classified information through her unsecure clintonmail.com email account. The Abedin emails also include repeated instances of Clinton’s detailed daily schedules being sent to top Clinton Foundation officials at unsecured email addresses.
The records were produced by the State Department from the non-state.gov email accounts of Abedin. The records were obtained in response to a court order from our May 5, 2015, lawsuit filed against the State Department (Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:15-cv-00684)) for:
All emails of official State Department business received or sent by former Deputy Chief of Staff Huma Abedin from January 1, 2009 through February 1, 2013 using a non-“state.gov” email address.
The new documents included 29 Hillary Clinton email exchanges not previously turned over to the State Department, bringing the known total to date to at least 317 emails that were not part of the 55,000 pages of emails that Clinton turned over to the State Department. These records further appear to contradict statements by Clinton that, “as far as she knew,” all of her government emails were turned over to the State Department.
The emails show classified information was sent through the clintonemail.com account:

In a December 21, 2009, email, Clinton top national security and foreign policy staffer Jake Sullivan forwarded an email to Clinton’s unsecured email account containing classified information heavily redacted under FOIA exemption B1.4(D) – “Information specifically authorized by an executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy … Foreign relations or foreign activities of the United States, including confidential sources.” Clinton thenforwarded the email, concerning the climate change accord, from her unsecured email account to Abedin’s unsecured email account with the message, “Pls print.”

And, on December 24, 2009,Clinton sent an unsecured email from [email protected] to then-Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Johnnie Carson. The classified email, asking Carson to “Pls review the memcon of my call w [French] FM Kouchener [Redacted].” Information in this message was blacked out using FOIA exemptions B1.4(B) – “Foreign government information” and (D).

The new Abedin emails also reveal four instances in which Clinton’s then-Scheduler Lona Valmoro forwarded the former secretary of state’s detailed daily schedule to top Clinton Foundation officials. In each case, those who received the schedules included Bill Clinton’s personal scheduler and Foundation aide Terry Krinvic, Justin Cooper, a then-aide to President Clinton who helped manage Hillary Clinton’s unsecure email system, and Clinton Foundation Director Doug Band.
The Abedin emails contain information sent from Clinton’s unsecured [email protected] account in which she reminds an aide that she is to have a talk with New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand on “cybersecurity” and a reference to a “HRC Support Network”:
From: H [[email protected]]
Sent: Sunday, January 03, 2010 4:10:34 PM
To: [email protected]
CC: Huma Abedin
Subject: Call list and HRC Support Network
***
Kirsten Gillibrand—cybersecurity
These records reveal that on January 17, 2010, five days after the massive Haitian earthquake, former Bill Clinton aide Justin Cooper emailed Hillary Clinton’s then- Deputy Chiefs of Staff, Jake Sullivan and Huma Abedin, to ask if they can do a conference call to discuss Haiti. Clinton Foundation officials Laura Graham and Doug Band are also provided the call-in information for the conference call. (Author Peter Schweizer would later describe in his book Clinton Cash how the Obama administration, during Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state, allowed hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. taxpayer-funded reconstruction contracts for Haiti to flow through the Clinton Foundation.)
According to minutes of a January 27, 2010, senior State Department staff meeting, diligent U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents uncovered “at least a couple pedophiles” attempting to adopt children in Haiti following the earthquake. The State Department was reportedly working with the Haitian government to expedite adoptions and removal to the United States of Haitian orphans.
These new emails show Hillary Clinton is a serial violator of various laws concerning the handling of classified material. The initial investigation into this criminal matter was compromised by Barack Obama’s corrupted FBI and Justice Department. This new information should spur new federal criminal investigations, hopefully under a new director of the FBI (see my comments for our friends at Breitbart on the disastrous FBI Director Comey here.)

JW Releases First Set of Numbers on President Trump Travel: Air Force One Costs for Two Trips: $1,281,420
Your JW wouldn’t be a credible watchdog group if we stopped asking questions depending on who is in office. We are a go-to source for information about what politicians are up to – including on where they are traveling and the associated costs for put upon taxpayers.
As part of this accountability mission, we released records from the Department of the Air Force in response to Freedom of Information Act Request (FOIA) requests that show President Trump’s flights to Mar-a-Lago for two weekends (in February and March) cost $1,281,420.00.
According to the Air Force documents, the cost to operate Air Force One is $142,380 per hour. The Air Force records show a total of nine hours for trips from Feb. 3 – 6 and March 3 – 6. The latter trip involved a stop in Orlando where Trump met Education Secretary Betsy DeVos to tour a private Catholic school in support of school vouchers.

On February 3-6, Air Force One traveled 4.7 hours of flight time @ $142,380 per hour for a total of $669,186
In March, Air Force One flew 4.3 hours at $142,380 per hour for a total of $612,234, which includes the jaunt to Orlando, an additional half-hour of flight costs.

The Secret Service hasn’t responded to Judicial Watch’s request for records about this or any other trip by President Trump and other administration VIPs. Other trip cost information requests to the Air Force also remain pending.
From 2009, to the end of former President Obama’s term, JW tracked President Obama’s travel, resulting in a tabulation of at least $96,938,882.51 in taxpayer dollars for Obama family travel during his eight years in office. In fact, we’re still waiting on some of Obama’s travel numbers.
We’re pleased that the Air Force finally gave us some of the numbers for President Trump’s travel.
We’re preparing to go to court to get a full accounting of President Trump’s controversial trips.
Judicial Watch tracked some of the costs of President Obama’s unnecessary travel and we’re not closing up shop with a new administration.
This weekend, President Trump traveled to one of his homes in New Jersey and, seemingly responding to JW’s disclosures, highlighted in a tweet how going to stay in NJ is cheaper for taxpayers than visiting his home in mid-town Manhattan. It is good that, unlike the prior Oval Office occupant, he is at least showing some sensitivity on this issue and taking our advice to consider the taxpayer impact of any unnecessary travel.

Court Rules State Department Must Release Clinton Emails Detailing Obama Response to Benghazi
I have some good news on bad news on getting more answers on the Benghazi outrage.
First the good news. We put out word this morning that on March 20, 2017, U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson ordered the U.S. Department of State to turn over to Judicial Watch “eight identical paragraphs” of previously redacted material in two September 13, 2012, Hillary Clinton emails. The emails regarded phone calls made by President Barack Obama to Egyptian and Libyan leaders immediately following the terrorist attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi. Both emails had the subject line “Quick Summary of POTUS Calls to Presidents of Libya and Egypt” and were among the emails stored on Clinton’s unofficial email server. Judge Jackson reviewed the documents directly and rejected the government’s contention that the records had been properly withheld under the FOIA B(5) “deliberative process” exemption.
Judge Jackson ruled: “the two records, even if just barely predecisional, are not deliberative. [The State Department] has pointed to very little to support its characterization of these two records as deliberative, and the Court’s in camera review of the documents reveals that they do not fall within that category.”
The full emails may reveal what former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and President Obama knew about the September 11, 2012, terror attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi.
Now the bad news!
Immediately following Judge Jackson’s March 20 ruling, the State Department asked the court to reconsider. The State Department argued that, due to an internal “mistake,” it failed to claim that the emails were classified and, therefore, exempt from production under FOIA Exemption B(1).
You won’t be surprised to learn our attorney team went back to court to oppose this gambit. Our brief argues that the failure was not a mistake, but instead was 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.
Our filing cites an interview of an FBI employee who told federal investigators that top State Department official Patrick Kennedy pressured the FBI to keep Clinton’s emails unclassified. The employee told the FBI he “believes STATE ha[d] an agenda which involves minimizing the classified nature of the CLINTON emails in order to protect STATE interests and those of CLINTON.”
We also cite to an interview of a State Department employee who told the FBI that the State Department’s Office of Legal Counsel interfered with the FOIA processing of email from Secretary Clinton’s server, instructing reviewers to use Exemption B(5) (deliberative process exemption) instead of Exemption B(1) (classified information exemption). According to the FBI interview:
STATE’s Near East Affairs Bureau upgraded several of CLINTON’s emails to a classified level with a B(1) release exemption. [Redacted], along with [Redacted] attorney, Office of Legal Counsel, called STATE’s Near East Affairs Bureau and told them they could use a B(5) exemption on a upgraded email to protect it instead of the B(1) exemption. However, the use of the B(5) exemption, which is usually used for executive privilege-related information, was incorrect as the information actually was classified and related to national security, which would be a B(1) exemption.
Judicial Watch argues:
An agency’s deliberate withholding of a FOIA claim, either to gain a tactical advantage or, as appears to be the case here, to protect the agency’s interests and those of its former head, is “a motive undoubtedly inconsistent with FOIA’s broad remedial purpose …” It “counsels denying the Government’s request.”
The emails in question were sent to then-top administration officials, including Clinton, 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 Advisor Denis McDonough.
I’m sure you share my concern that this potentially historic Benghazi material may never see the light of day thanks to some within the Trump administration. Does President Trump know his State and Justice Departments are still trying to provide cover for Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama?”
I can’t believe this extraordinary court ruling that could result in key answers about the Benghazi outrage is being opposed by the Trump administration. This may well be an example of the “deep state” trying to get away with a cover up. If so, then the Trump administration must put a stop to it.
We fought the Obama administration in court repeatedly to uncover the truth about Benghazi that even Congress couldn’t get. Let’s hope the Trump administration appointees understand the stakes and stop fighting us in court (and wasting taxpayer dollars) to defend the indefensible.

Select Committee on Benghazi Releases Proposed Report
81 New Witnesses, 75,000 New Pages of Documents Reveal Significant New Information,
Fundamentally Changes the Public’s Understanding of the 2012 Terrorist Attacks that Killed Four Americans
Washington, D.C. – Select Committee on Benghazi Chairman Trey Gowdy (SC-04) released the following statement after the committee’s Majority released a mark of its investigative report:
“Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods were heroes who gave their lives in service to our country. Their bravery and the courageous actions of so many others on the ground that night should be honored.
“When the Select Committee was formed, I promised to conduct this investigation in a manner worthy of the American people’s respect, and worthy of the memory of those who died. That is exactly what my colleagues and I have done.
“Now, I simply ask the American people to read this report for themselves, look at the evidence we have collected, and reach their own conclusions. You can read this report in less time than our fellow citizens were taking fire and fighting for their lives on the rooftops and in the streets of Benghazi.”
The committee’s proposed report is just over 800 pages long and is comprised of five primary sections and 12 appendices. It details relevant events in 2011 and 2012.
The following facts are among the many new revelations in Part I:

Despite President Obama and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta’s clear orders to deploy military assets, nothing was sent to Benghazi, and nothing was en route to Libya at the time the last two Americans were killed almost 8 hours after the attacks began. [pg. 141]
With Ambassador Stevens missing, the White House convened a roughly two-hour meeting at 7:30 PM, which resulted in action items focused on a YouTube video, and others containing the phrases “[i]f any deployment is made,” and “Libya must agree to any deployment,” and “[w]ill not deploy until order comes to go to either Tripoli or Benghazi.” [pg. 115]
The Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff typically would have participated in the White House meeting, but did not attend because he went home to host a dinner party for foreign dignitaries. [pg. 107]
A Fleet Antiterrorism Security Team (FAST) sat on a plane in Rota, Spain, for three hours, and changed in and out of their uniforms four times. [pg. 154]
None of the relevant military forces met their required deployment timelines. [pg. 150]
The Libyan forces that evacuated Americans from the CIA Annex to the Benghazi airport was not affiliated with any of the militias the CIA or State Department had developed a relationship with during the prior 18 months. Instead, it was comprised of former Qadhafi loyalists who the U.S. had helped remove from power during the Libyan revolution. [pg. 144]

Rep. Mike Pompeo (KS-04) released the following statement regarding these findings:
“We expect our government to make every effort to save the lives of Americans who serve in harm’s way. That did not happen in Benghazi. Politics were put ahead of the lives of Americans, and while the administration had made excuses and blamed the challenges posed by time and distance, the truth is that they did not try.”
Rep. Martha Roby (AL-02) released the following statement regarding these findings:
“Our committee’s insistence on additional information about the military’s response to the Benghazi attacks was met with strong opposition from the Defense Department, and now we know why. Instead of attempting to hide deficiencies in our posture and performance, it’s my hope our report will help ensure we fix what went wrong so that a tragedy like this never happens again.”
The following facts are among the many new revelations in Part II:

Five of the 10 action items from the 7:30 PM White House meeting referenced the video, but no direct link or solid evidence existed connecting the attacks in Benghazi and the video at the time the meeting took place. The State Department senior officials at the meeting had access to eyewitness accounts to the attack in real time. The Diplomatic Security Command Center was in direct contact with the Diplomatic Security Agents on the ground in Benghazi and sent out multiple updates about the situation, including a “Terrorism Event Notification.” The State Department Watch Center had also notified Jake Sullivan and Cheryl Mills that it had set up a direct telephone line to Tripoli. There was no mention of the video from the agents on the ground. Greg Hicks—one of the last people to talk to Chris Stevens before he died—said there was virtually no discussion about the video in Libya leading up to the attacks. [pg. 28]
The morning after the attacks, the National Security Council’s Deputy Spokesperson sent an email to nearly two dozen people from the White House, Defense Department, State Department, and intelligence community, stating: “Both the President and Secretary Clinton released statements this morning. … Please refer to those for any comments for the time being. To ensure we are all in sync on messaging for the rest of the day, Ben Rhodes will host a conference call for USG communicators on this chain at 9:15 ET today.” [pg. 39]
Minutes before the President delivered his speech in the Rose Garden, Jake Sullivan wrote in an email to Ben Rhodes and others: “There was not really much violence in Egypt. And we are not saying that the violence in Libya erupted ‘over inflammatory videos.’” [pg. 44]
According to Susan Rice, both Ben Rhodes and David Plouffe prepared her for her appearances on the Sunday morning talk shows following the attacks. Nobody from the FBI, Department of Defense, or CIA participated in her prep call. While Rhodes testified Plouffe would “normally” appear on the Sunday show prep calls, Rice testified she did not recall Plouffe being on prior calls and did not understand why he was on the call in this instance. [pg.98]
On the Sunday shows, Susan Rice stated the FBI had “already begun looking at all sorts of evidence” and “FBI has a lead in this investigation.” But on Monday, the Deputy Director, Office of Maghreb Affairs sent an email stating: “McDonough apparently told the SVTS [Secure Video Teleconference] group today that everyone was required to ‘shut their pieholes’ about the Benghazi attack in light of the FBI investigation, due to start tomorrow.” [pg. 135]
After Susan Rice’s Sunday show appearances, Jake Sullivan assured the Secretary of the State that Rice “wasn’t asked about whether we had any intel. But she did make clear our view that this started spontaneously and then evolved.” [pg. 128]
Susan Rice’s comments on the Sunday talk shows were met with shock and disbelief by State Department employees in Washington. The Senior Libya Desk Officer, Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, State Department, wrote: “I think Rice was off the reservation on this one.” The Deputy Director, Office of Press and Public Diplomacy, Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, State Department, responded: “Off the reservation on five networks!” The Senior Advisor for Strategic Communications, Bureau of Near East Affairs, State Department, wrote: “WH [White House] very worried about the politics. This was all their doing.” [pg. 132]
The CIA’s September 13, 2012, intelligence assessment was rife with errors. On the first page, there is a single mention of “the early stages of the protest” buried in one of the bullet points. The article cited to support the mention of a protest in this instance was actually from September 4. In other words, the analysts used an article from a full week before the attacks to support the premise that a protest had occurred just prior to the attack on September 11. [pg. 47]
A headline on the following page of the CIA’s September 13 intelligence assessment stated “Extremists Capitalized on Benghazi Protests,” but nothing in the actual text box supports that title. As it turns out, the title of the text box was supposed to be “Extremists Capitalized on Cairo Protests.” That small but vital difference—from Cairo to Benghazi—had major implications in how people in the administration were able to message the attacks. [pg. 52]

Rep. Jim Jordan (OH-04) released the following statement regarding these findings:
“Obama Administration officials, including the Secretary of State, learned almost in real time that the attack in Benghazi was a terrorist attack. Rather than tell the American people the truth, the administration told one story privately and a different story publicly.”
Rep. Peter Roskam (IL-06) released the following statement regarding these findings:
“In the days and weeks after the attacks, the White House worked to pin all of the blame for their misleading and incorrect statements on officials within the intelligence community, but in reality, political operatives like Ben Rhodes and David Plouffe were spinning the false narrative and prepping Susan Rice for her interviews.”
The following facts are among the many new revelations in Part III:

During deliberations within the State Department about whether and how to intervene in Libya in March 2011, Jake Sullivan listed the first goal as “avoid[ing] a failed state, particularly one in which al-Qaeda and other extremists might take safe haven.” [pg. 9]
The administration’s policy of no boots on the ground shaped the type of military assistance provided to State Department personnel in Libya. The Executive Secretariats for both the Defense Department and State Department exchanged communications outlining the diplomatic capacity in which the Defense Department SST security team members would serve, which included wearing civilian clothes so as not to offend the Libyans. [pg. 60]
When the State Department’s presence in Benghazi was extended in December 2012, senior officials from the Bureau of Diplomatic Security were excluded from the discussion. [pg. 74]
In February 2012, the lead Diplomatic Security Agent at Embassy Tripoli informed his counterpart in Benghazi that more DS agents would not be provided by decision makers, because “substantive reporting” was not Benghazi’s purpose. [pg. 77]
Emails indicate senior State Department officials, including Cheryl Mills, Jake Sullivan, and Huma Abedin were preparing for a trip by the Secretary of State to Libya in October 2012. According to testimony, Chris Stevens wanted to have a “deliverable” for the Secretary for her trip to Libya, and that “deliverable” would be making the Mission in Benghazi a permanent Consulate. [pg. 96]
In August 2012—roughly a month before the Benghazi attacks—security on the ground worsened significantly. Ambassador Stevens initially planned to travel to Benghazi in early August, but cancelled the trip “primarily for Ramadan/security reasons.” [pg. 99]
Former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta bluntly told the committee “an intelligence failure” occurred with respect to Benghazi. Former CIA Deputy Director Michael Morell also acknowledged multiple times an intelligence failure did in fact occur prior to the Benghazi attacks. [pg. 129]

Rep. Susan Brooks (IN-05) released the following statement regarding these findings:
“President Obama has said his worst mistake was ‘failing to plan for the day after … intervening in Libya.’ As a result of this ‘lead from behind’ foreign policy, the Libyan people were forced to make the dismal trade of the tyranny of Qadhafi for the terror of ISIS, Al-Qaeda and others. Although the State Department considered Libya a grave risk to American diplomats in 2011 and 2012, our people remained in a largely unprotected, unofficial facility that one diplomatic security agent the committee interviewed characterized as ‘a suicide mission.’”
Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (GA-03) released the following statement regarding these findings:
“One of the most concerning parts of the State Department’s policy in Libya was its reliance upon the militias of an unstable nation to protect our men and women in Benghazi. These were by no means forces that could adequately protect Americans on the ground, and the State Department knew it. But the appearance of no boots on the ground was more important to the administration.”
Part IV of the report reveals new information about the Select Committee’s requests and subpoenas seeking documents and witnesses regarding Benghazi and Libya, and details what the Obama administration provided to Congress, what it is still withholding, and how its serial delays hindered the committee’s efforts to uncover the truth.
Part V proposes 25 recommendations for the Pentagon, State Department, Intelligence Community and Congress aimed at strengthening security for American personnel serving abroad and doing everything possible to ensure something like Benghazi never happens again, and if it does, that we are better prepared to respond, the majority make a series of recommendations.
The Select Committee intends to convene a bipartisan markup to discuss and vote on the proposed report on July 8, 2016. All members of the committee will have the opportunity to offer changes in a manner consistent with the rules of the House.
Below is the full report with links to PDF files of each section.
Report of the Select Committee on
the Events Surrounding the 2012
Terrorist Attack in Benghazi
Letter from Chairman Trey Gowdy to Speaker Paul Ryan

The Benghazi Committee's Investigation - By The Numbers

Illustrations

I. Terrorist Attacks on U.S. Facilities in Benghazi

II. Internal and Public Government Communications about the Terrorist
Attacks in Benghazi

III. Events Leading to the Terrorist Attacks in Benghazi

IV. Compliance with Congressional Investigations

V. Recommendations

Appendix A: Resolution Establishing the Select Committee on the
Events Surrounding the 2012 Terrorist Attack in Benghazi

Appendix B: Significant Persons and Organizations

Appendix C: Questions for the President

Appendix D: Significant Events in Libya Prior to the Attacks

Appendix E: Security Incidents in Libya

Appendix F: Deterioration of Benghazi Mission Compound Security

Appendix G: Timelines of the Attacks

Appendix H: The September 12 Situation Report and the President’s
Daily Brief

Appendix I: Witness Interview Summaries

Appendix J: Requests and Subpoenas for Documents

Appendix K: Analysis of Accountability Review Board, House Armed
Services Committee and House Permanent Select Intelligence Committee
Reports

Appendix L: Glen A. Doherty, Sean P. Smith, J. Christopher Stevens,
and Tyrone S. Woods

Additional Views by Rep. Jordan and Rep. Pompeo

Trey Gowdy calls State Department ‘deplorable’ for what they just didApril 9, 2016 | Frieda Powers
The State Department finally released documents on Friday that were requested by the Benghazi committee, but the more than one-year wait was deplorable to Rep. Trey Gowdy.
Gowdy, chairman of the House Select Committee on Benghazi, slammed the State Department for its delay in responding to subpoenas issued in March and August of 2015, following the initial request by the Republican congressman in November 2014.
“It is deplorable that it took over a year for these records to be produced to our committee, and that our Democrat colleagues never lifted a finger to help us get them,” Gowdy said in a press release Friday.
More than 1,100 pages of documents were turned over to the committee which was established to investigate the 2012 terror attack at the U.S. embassy in Libya. For months, Gowdy has been battling with Democrats on the committee which is led by ranking member Rep. Elijah Cummings.
“This investigation is about a terrorist attack that killed four Americans, and it could have been completed a lot sooner if the administration had not delayed and delayed and delayed at every turn,” said Gowdy.
According to the press release, the documents included emails from Jake Sullivan and Huma Abedin, aides to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, as well as those from then-chief of staff, Cheryl Mills, and Susan Rice, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations at the time.
Gowdy complained that the committee was still waiting for some documents and even witnesses to be questioned and took a swipe at critics who had called for the committee to be dissolved.
“Shame on them and everyone else who has demanded this committee to give up before gathering all of the facts,” he said. “As soon as possible, we will release our report and interview transcripts so everyone can see the evidence for themselves, and I’m confident the value and fairness of our investigation will then be abundantly clear to everyone.”
___________________________

Trey Gowdy Just Made a HUGE MOVE, Which Could Mean the END of Hillary Clinton
By TPIWriter

The Select Committee on Benghazi, which is run by conservative hero Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC), is not pleased with the latest news that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had multiple private email addresses hosted on a home-brew server. This is quite unusual, and was a massive threat to national security. And Hillary knew how damaging this would be to her, which is why we must find out just what she was hiding in her official communications.

The Committee has issued subpoenas for “all communications” from former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton pertaining to the easily avoidable terrorist attacks in Libya and at the State Department. They also extend to anyone who might have information “pertinent” to the committee’s investigation.

Gowdy has the legal subpoena power to expose Hillary and destroy her campaign for President. Here is the release the committee published:

Select Committee on Benghazi Communications Director Jamal D. Ware issued the following statement regarding the use of multiple email addresses by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton:

“The Select Committee on Benghazi is in possession of records with two separate and distinct email addresses used by former Secretary Clinton and dated during the time she was Secretary of State.

“Without access to the relevant electronic information and stored data on the server—which was reportedly registered to her home—there is no way the Committee, or anyone else, can fully explain why the Committee uncovered two email addresses.

“As Chairman Gowdy has noted, this is why former Secretary Clinton’s exclusive use of personal emails to conduct official U.S. government business is so problematic and raises significant issues for transparency. The American people have a right to a full accounting of all the former Secretary’s emails, and the Committee is committed to working to uncover all the facts.”

Do you support Gowdy’s efforts to expose Hillary’s corruption? Please leave us a comment and tell us what you think.

Share
Read more:
____________________________