Clinton’s lack of ‘wrongdoing’ was because she did nothing

(AP photo)

The headline inside the A section of the morning paper says volumes — unintentionally.

“House Benghazi report finds no ‘smoking gun’: Partisan probe uncovers no Clinton wrongdoing,” reads the headline over the abbreviated AP story with a sidebar in which Hillary Clinton says it is time to move on.

The headline largely recapitulates the lede on the AP account, but both should actually state that no “new” smoking gun was revealed. The fact that Clinton lied through her teeth about a video prompting the impromptu attack instead of it being a planned terrorist assault has long been known, as is the fact she told the truth to her daughter and a foreign diplomat while blatantly lying to the public.

But the most telling word is “wrongdoing.” Actually, the report reveals that Clinton did nothing— wrong or otherwise — before during or after the Sept. 11, 2012, attack 56 days before the election, except lie. She was immobile, inanimate and did not pick up the phone or take any initiative to do anything.

Before the attack she did nothing to increase security. During the attack she was a non-entity, doing nothing, and certainly nothing that could be “wrongdoing.” Afterward, she lied repeatedly. To some that might be a “wrongdoing,” but an already well established wrongdoing.

The morning paper cut off the story before getting to this paragraph:

Reps. Mike Pompeo of Kansas and Jim Jordan of Ohio issued a separate report slamming Clinton and the Obama administration, with Pompeo telling reporters that the former first lady and senator was “morally reprehensible.” Clinton’s public comments casting the attack as a possible protest over the anti-Muslim video differed sharply from her private assessments to her daughter, Chelsea, and foreign diplomats, Jordan and Pompeo said.

After standing before a flag-draped coffin, the father of Tyrone Woods recorded in his diary: “I gave Hillary a hug and shook her hand, and she said we are going to have the filmmaker arrested who was responsible for the death of my son.” But no wrongdoing. The terrorists weren’t responsible. The filmmaker was.

Ambassador Chris Stevens was in Benghazi in an attempt to make the diplomatic post there a permanent one in preparation was a planned visit from Clinton.

“In his interview with Secretary Clinton prior to confirmation as ambassador to Libya, Secretary Clinton told Ambassador Stevens that she hoped that Benghazi would become a permanent post.” the Pompeo-Jordan summary states. “In late July 2012, Ambassador Stevens discussed the issue with his Deputy Chief of Mission Gregory Hicks. According to Mr. Hicks, during their discussion Ambassador Stevens said that Secretary Clinton might travel to Libya again, possibly in October, and that Stevens wanted to have a ‘deliverable’ for her trip. That ‘deliverable’ was to make the mission in Benghazi permanent.”

But in August Clinton had received a memo about the violence in the region that contained these specifics:


• “In response to five attacks since May, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) withdrew its personnel from Benghazi and Misrata in early August[.] The ICRC country director believes international organizations in Libya have underestimated the recent rise in violence out of a shared sense of optimism.”

• “The distance from the already weak central security services, feelings of marginalization from the central government, and a history of lslamist extremism in some eastern towns all seem to contribute to a permissive environment where disparate motivations for violence have found fertile ground in which to germinate. The national Supreme Security Council – a post-revolutionary coalition of militia elements cobbled into a single force and designed to provide interim security in Benghazi – has had limited success as a stabilizing force.”

• “The government seems largely unable to gather intelligence in advance of attacks and central security services appear intimidated by the local militias, in some cases tacitly ceding their authority. Some actors see the weak response from the government and feel they can act with increasing impunity. The sense of lawlessness encourages spoilers, predators, and other disruptive players to escalate their actions.”

• “Benghazi was once palpably safer than Tripoli [but] . . . lawlessness is increasing. … Despite the urgency, however, the government’s response is likely to continue to be hesitant and tentative[.]”

And Clinton did nothing.

Asked about the memo during a congressional hearing, Clinton said, “Well, I think that, again, there was no recommendation based on any of the assessments, not from our State Department experts, not from the intelligence community, that we should abandon either Benghazi or Tripoli.”

Just the facts, ma’am, just the facts. Don’t draw any conclusions, just wait till you are handed a recommendation.


29 comments on “Clinton’s lack of ‘wrongdoing’ was because she did nothing

  1. Bruce Feher says:

    And our “choice” is between this lying piece of trash and Trump. I’ll take the lesser of two evils, Donald!

  2. Patrick says:

    Sure didn’t take Nevada’s own bastard long did it Thomas? Nope, in spite of the fact that he COULD have done the “right” thing and acted like he believed in the Constitution, he chose not to. He decided, and quickly I might add, that undermining the Constitution can be fun.

    What do you think Thomas?

  3. So much for the current phony Hillary campaign narrative about her “steady hand” of leadership in foreign policy matters. And so much for her phony campaign ad when she ran against Obama…about “who do you want answering the phone in the White House at 3 a.m.” When the Benghazi disaster occurred she set the phony narrative in motion, shut off her phone and then went to bed. All of that BS went out the window with the latest findings of the Select Committee on Benghazi…whining naysayers babbling “move along nothing to see here” notwithstanding!

  4. nyp says:

    Yawn …

  5. If you were a lawyer, wouldn’t you want uniform interpretation of the Constitution?

  6. Patrick says:

    In this case, the Supreme Courts interpretation of the Constitution has nothing to do with whether the highest law enforcement official in the state permits the use of improperly seized evidence in cases in Nevada.

    States rights remember? Governance close to home etc. And, you didn’t answer the question.

  7. 14th: “… nor shall any STATE deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

  8. Patrick says:

    That just went over my head sorry.

    The point is, the attorney general could, if he wished, adopt a rule in the state, to exclude the type of evidence, obtained in violation of the 4th Amendment, that the 3 1/2 “conservative” members of the Supreme Court found constitutionally admissible.

    Which is of course the appropriate Constitutional path to take, if the bastard were true to the Constitution.

    So, should he do so or not….in your opinion?

  9. Hillary Clinton’s SOP (Standard Operating Procedures) when dealing with missteps or scandal.
    Cackle and laugh when asked a difficult question…then:
    1. Deny the truth repeatedly — get lapdog media to repeat ad nauseum. Evidence be damned.
    2. Delay by not cooperating with investigations. “What difference at this point does it make?”
    3. Deflect (example: blame a YouTube video, or a “vast right-wing conspiracy”)
    4. Destroy the reputations of her or her husbands accusers (reduce investigations to “right-wing conspiracy theorists,” continually call the investigation a “witch hunt.”)

  10. Nyp says:

    Yup, seems appropriate for a Republican to now be calling a female politician a “witch.”

    Not surprising at all.

  11. OK little nyper…change the W to a B which is actually more appropriate…does that make you feel better? (I notice you have no problem yawning when it comes to a dead Ambassador, his dead aid, and two dead Navy Seals…progressive socialist Dems have to have their own little set of priorities I suppose).

  12. Nyp says:

    I yawn not at the sad deaths of four Americans in a war-torn country, but at your unending attempts to use that event for crass partisan purposes.

    But go right ahead — call Hillary a bitch. That’s how you Republicans treat women who disagree with you.

  13. Nice try…I’m calling ONE woman a bitch, and she’s earned that moniker…her dossier on the subject is at least two inches thick and counting. If that causes you heartburn…so be it.

  14. Nyp says:

    Yes, you are indeed calling the first woman Presidential nominee a “bitch”.

    That is the kind of person you are.

  15. Steve says:

    Ya just gotta know, when someone opens a “discussion” with an insult ridden lead like “Sure didn’t take Nevada’s own bastard long did it Thomas?” that the “discussion” is already predetermined with one wanted outcome.

    A request to discuss should be done with respect for all involved in the topic whether it be on topic or not.

  16. Steve says:

    No he isn’t, nyp.
    Brien is calling Hillary Clinton a bitch.

    In 1872, Victoria Woodhull became the first female presidential candidate, making Hillary Clinton the second.

    And Brien is right, only one such as Hillary would use her husband to get another guy to run against her so she would have an easy path to the Whitehouse.

  17. Rincon says:

    So Hillary’s capital offense was that she, in the early stages, mischaracterized the nature of the mob, even though there’s no evidence that she could have expected the public to be kept from the information that she had at the time. She was just sort of hoping that nobody would look? Sorry, doesn’t pass the sniff test. Also not quite up to the Watergate standard.

  18. Steve says:

    If I read that right, Rincon, it appears you are not all that impressed with her.

    If so, I offer an alternative and it appears the Libertarians are the sane ones today.
    Johnson/Weld in November.
    For sanity.

  19. Patrick says:

    Where’s Winston when you need him? Come on Winston, I know you’re out there.

    Talk to me about how Nevada’s highest law enforcement officer, in spite of his professed love of the US Constitution (and his sworn duty to uphold it) is, based on the above cited action) trying to undermine it.

    And, ought to be ousted from office for this violation of his oath.

    The bastard that he is.

  20. Rincon says:

    You’re right that I am not impressed with Hillary. Our options will always be limited as long as we have a two party system and as long as money has an undue influence on electionability.

    I checked out the Libertarian platform. Some good ideas, but extreme. For example, they say that government should not help the dispossessed in any way, claiming that private charities should be given the task of caring for all. Do they have any evidence at all that this would be any way near adequate? I didn’t think so. You require a very strict, demanding and probably impossible consensus on global warming before you think we should act, but on this, you’re willing to act on their uninformed opinions alone? That is inconsistent.

    They also say, “We call for the repeal of the income tax, the abolishment of the Internal Revenue Service and all federal programs and services not required under the U.S. Constitution.” As only a small example, this would bring pollution back to the days of rivers catching on fire, lead in paint and the freedom to dump toxic waste wherever. We would also go back to patent medicines, just as in the days when radium was a common active ingredient. Ineffective drugs would be all over the market, each made by a small corporation (initiated with seed money from a large corporation )that would merely go bankrupt, after many years, when the lawsuits began piling up AFTER their owners extracted a satisfactory amount of profits. They would then repeat their performance over and over. I could go on, but you get the idea.

  21. Steve says:

    “You require a very strict, demanding and probably impossible consensus”

    What? There can be 97% consensus on “climate Change”? But NOT on what portion is attributable to human activity?
    That’s being “strict” and “demanding”? It’s being “strict” and “demanding” to desire a baseline for assessing effects of any so called “mitigation” efforts?
    So you are demanding totally blind action and THAT is NOT “demanding” or “strict”

    I see….smh.

    You looked up the platform for the party….now go look what the nominee’s are saying.
    They are sane and thoughtful people the Libertarians put forth. And (as liberals LOVE to say) they are “evolving”…..

  22. Rincon says:

    31 professional associations including the American Meteorological Association, 92% of whom have a Bachelor’s, Master’s or PhD in meteorology or atmospheric sciences, signed a letter stating that there is abundant evidence that humans are “the primary driver” of the observed temperature increase, but that’s not good enough for you. I’ll just let that fact speak for itself.

  23. Steve says:

    You already posted that….and I already replied to it.

    It’s a good start.
    But still it remains nothing like the “97% consensus of climate scientists” who agree the climate is changing.
    But I note you did try to sneak in a 90 percentile.
    I see how that works….

  24. “In recent years enough data have been collected over a sufficient time period to supplant model-driven estimates of the climate’s sensitivity to carbon dioxide with empirically based climate sensitivity estimates. The No Tricks Zone website has collected 50 papers supporting the conclusion that doubling carbon dioxide concentrations to 550 ppm results in a much lower temperature increase than 1.2°C. Some of the papers estimate a doubling would result in just 0.02° to 0.7°C of warming. Others find increasing carbon dioxide concentrations, because of various feedbacks, could result in net cooling of the Earth rather than a warming.”

  25. Steve says:

    Interesting, but still doesn’t answer my question…..from either point of view.

  26. Rincon says:

    “The No Tricks Zone website has collected 50 papers supporting the conclusion that doubling carbon dioxide concentrations to 550 ppm results in a much lower temperature increase than 1.2°C.”

    I checked it out and find it will take more time to evaluate. I do observe that a great many of these papers were published in the ’70’s. 40 years ago!! They aren’t serious, are they?
    Perhaps we’ve accumulated some knowledge since then? I’m also very impressed that they have found a way of precisely calculating how much warming to expect from a given concentration of CO2 while no other human beings can honestly make that claim. Perhaps they found a crystal ball? Do any of these 50 papers give a reasonable hypothesis regarding the cause of the observed warming to date?

    I did check out one from 2016, since it was very recent. It was the only one I looked at. It was written by an “expert (whatever that means) on combustion, flames, explosions, and fire. OK, I suppose fire and global warming are closely enough related for the Heartland Institute. The other author, Hans Schreuder, ” trained as an analytical chemist in The Hague and spent fifteen years working in that field, testing pharmaceutical products as well as researching the recycling of plastics and rubber. For another fifteen years, he gained extensive experience as an international technical contractor, including writing quality control manuals whilst working in South Africa . WOW! He wrote quality control manuals! I’m so impressed! Unfortunately, they have done no original research here. Their paper is merely a skeptical editorial that I could have easily written myself.

    Where was this earthshaking paper published? So far as I can see, it was published by the Heartland Institute! I never realized they were a leading publisher of scientific literature. I still don’t. Sorry Thomas. Just because they have 50 papers does not mean that any should be taken seriously. Would you be willing to select the 4 or 5 most convincing papers out of the 50 and I can look them over? I’m just not willing to critique 50 pieces of idiocy just because the Heartland Institute cites them. And if I only look at 40, you guys will tell me that I cherry picked the bad ones. And then if you like, I can give you 5 papers to tear apart. I love it. Dueling papers.

    As I’ve said before, if you expect me to take the propaganda spewed forth by the Heartland Institute seriously, then will you in turn, promise to take seriously some propaganda from the Sierra Club and Greenpeace? I’m sure I can find plenty.

  27. Patrick says:


    You’ve happened upon one of the strategies used by the Heartland institute since they were created as the propaganda wing of the big tobacco companies years ago; creating (and I mean that literally) enough gobbligook and attaching some “scienticians” name to it, to make it appear to a casual observer that some “real” dispute exists as to the facts.

    It worked so well, for so long, in spite of the fact that the tobacco companies own research had shown the lies that the group was telling, that the companies continued to defraud billions and billions of dollars out of the people they were killing.

    The strategy continues with regard to climate change with (tragically) the same result. Years from now, and remember I said this, all the people denying that man is causing global warming, will be saying what they now tell people who died, or will die from using cigarettes; “only a fool didn’t know it was happening.”

  28. Rincon says:

    “only a fool didn’t know it was happening.” Well put. We may not be able to precisely predict the speed of the warming, but you’ve totally nailed what Conservatives will be saying.

    What kills me is that despite the outright fraud of this Heartland article, many on this Web site will continue to trust their words on other topics. Not unusual though. I see parents trusting the words of their lying little brats over that of say, a teacher every once in awhile.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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


Connecting to %s