BREAKING: Update From Benghazi Hearings

ELDER PARIOT – The immediate takeaway from today’s hearings prior to the 4 pm break is that Mrs. Clinton has ably navigated the political minefield that was laid for her.  That’s the immediate takeaway, only. 

It will be only through the compilation of the testimony of all of the deponents against a properly constructed timeline that any important revelations may be forthcoming.

So far the Democrats have been hammering home the fact that this is nothing more than a political witch-hunt.  That’s not entirely incorrect.  After all, this is not a court of law.  That may yet be the venue Mrs. Clinton finds herself in when the FBI finishes their investigation but the House is a political body and so these hearings will have political overtones and undertones.

This morning we learned that Hillary Clinton never believed the excuse that she fed us at the time about a YouTube video being the cause of an impromptu protest at our embassy.  Under questioning from Ohio Congressman Jim Jordan (R) we learned that Mrs. Clinton had emailed her family the night of the attack that the attack was an act of terrorism.  Worse, it was Mrs. Clinton who fabricated the lie.  The following transcript has emphasis added:

REP JIM JORDAN (R-OH): “So if there’s no evidence for a video-inspired protest, then where did the false narrative start?

It started with you, Madam Secretary.

At 10:08, on the night of the attack, you released this statement, “Some have sought to justify the vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet.”

At 10:08, with no evidence, at 10:08, before the attack is over, at 10:08, when Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty are still on the roof of the annex, fighting for their lives, the official statement of the State Department blames a video.


FMR. SECRETARY OF STATE HILLARY CLINTON: During the day on September 11th, as you did mention, Congressman, there was a very large protest against our embassy in Cairo. Protesters breached the walls. They tore down the American flag. And it was of grave concern to us because the inflammatory video had been shown on Egyptian television, which has a broader reach than just inside Egypt.

And if you look at what I said, I referred to the video that night in a very specific way. I said, some have sought to justify the attack because of the video.

I used those words deliberately, not to ascribe a motive to every attacker but as a warning to those across the region that there was no justification for further attacks.

And, in fact, during the course of that week, we had many attacks that were all about the video. We had people breaching the walls of our embassies in Tunis, in Khartoum; we had people, thankfully not Americans, dying at protests. But that’s what was going on, Congressman.

JORDAN: Secretary Clinton, I appreciate most of those attacks were after the attack on the facility in Benghazi. You mentioned Cairo. It was interesting what else Ms. Nuland said that day.

She said, “If pressed by the press, if there’s a connection between Cairo and Benghazi,” she said this, “there’s no connection between the two.”

So here’s what troubles me. Your experts knew the truth. Your spokesperson knew the truth. Greg Hicks knew the truth.

But what troubles me more is I think you knew the truth.

I want to show you a few things here. You’re looking at an e- mail you sent to your family.

Here’s what you said at 11:00 that night, approximately one hour after you told the American people it was a video, you say to your family, “Two officers were killed today in Benghazi by an Al Qaeda- like group.”

You tell — you tell the American people one thing, you tell your family an entirely different story.

Also on the night of the attack, you had a call with the president of Libya. Here’s what you said to him.

“Ansar al-Sharia is claiming responsibility.”

It’s interesting; Mr. Khattala, one of the guys arrested in charge actually belonged to that group.

And finally, most significantly, the next day, within 24 hours, you had a conversation with the Egyptian prime minister.

You told him this, “We know the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack, not a protest.”

Let me read that one more time.

“We know,” not we think, not it might be, “we know the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack, not a protest.”

State Department experts knew the truth. You knew the truth. But that’s not what the American people got. And again, the American people want to know why.

Why didn’t you tell the American people exactly what you told the Egyptian prime minister?

Putting this on a timeline makes the significance of this exchange more obvious.  Mrs. Clinton’s obfuscation about the facts surrounding the attack came less than two months before President Obama was to stand for re-election.  A cornerstone of his campaign was his success in keeping Americans safe and his détente with the Islamic world.

Yes, it’s political.  And so is the job Mrs. Clinton now seeks.  The American people deserve the opportunity to see her answer tough questions and decide for themselves if her integrity makes her a qualified candidate or not. 

Isn’t it interesting that the same people who justify their spying on us by saying if you’ve done nothing wrong you have nothing to worry about, themselves take offense to any questioning about their behavior?