Posted on 10/21/2019 10:10:44 AM PDT by jazusamo
(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch today released new Clinton emails on the Benghazi controversy that had been covered up for years and would have exposed Hillary Clinton’s email account if they had been released when the State Department first uncovered them in 2014. The long withheld email, clearly responsive to Judicial Watch’s lawsuit seeking records concerning “talking points or updates on the Benghazi attack,” contains Clinton’s private email address and a conversation about the YouTube video that sparked the Benghazi talking points scandal ( Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:14-cv-01242)). This Judicial Watch FOIA lawsuit led directly to the disclosure of the Clinton email system in 2015.
The Clinton email cover-up led to court-ordered discovery into three specific areas: whether Secretary Clinton’s use of a private email server was intended to stymie FOIA; whether the State Department’s intent to settle this case in late 2014 and early 2015 amounted to bad faith; and whether the State Department has adequately searched for records responsive to Judicial Watch’s request. The court also authorized discovery into whether the Benghazi controversy motivated the cover-up of Clinton’s email. (The court ruled that the Clinton email system was “one of the gravest modern offenses to government transparency.”)
The September 2012 email chain begins with an email to Clinton at her private email address, “hdr22@clintonemail.com,” from Jacob Sullivan, Clinton’s then-senior advisor and deputy chief of staff. The email was copied to Cheryl Mills, Clinton’s then-chief of staff, and then was forwarded to then-Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Strategic Communications and Clinton advisor Phillipe Reines:
From : Sullivan, Jacob J
Sent : Saturday, September 29, 2012 11 :09 AM
To : ‘hdr22@clintoncmail.com’ <hdr22@clintonemail.com>
Cc : Mills, Cheryl D
Subject : Key points
HRC, Cheryl –
Below is my stab at tp’s for the Senator call. Cheryl, I’ve left the last point blank for you. These are rough but you get the point.
I look forward to sitting down and having a Hillary~to-John conversation about what we know. l know you were frustrated by the briefing we did and I’m sorry our hands were tied in that setting.
It’s important we see each other in person, but over the phone today I just wanted to make a few points.
First, we have been taking this deadly seriously, as we should. I set up the ARB in record time, with serious people on it. l will get to the bottom of all the security questions. We are also in overdrive working to track down the killers, and not just through the FBI. We will get this right.
Second, the White House and Susan were not making things up. They were going with what they were told by the IC [Intelligence community].
The real story may have been obvious to you from the start (and indeed I called it an assault by heavily armed militants in my first statement), but the IC gave us very different information. They were unanimous about it.
Let me read you an email from the day before Susan went on the shows. It provides the talking points for HPSCI [House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence] and for her public appearance. It’s from a very senior official at CIA, copying his counterparts at DNI [Director of National Intelligence], NCTC [National Counterterrorism Center], and FBI:
Here are the talking points …
–The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the US Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the US Consulate and subsequently its annex. There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations.
-This assessment may change as additional information is collected and analyzed and as currently available information continues to be evaluated.
–The investigation is on-going, and the US Government is working with Libyan authorities to bring to justice those responsible for the deaths US citizens.
That is exactly what Susan said, following the guidance from the IC. She obviously got bad advice. But she was not shading the truth.
Third, you have to remember that the video WAS important. We had four embassies breached because of protests inspired by it. Cairo, Tunis, Khartoum, and Sanaa. We had serious security challenges in Pakistan and Chennai and some other places. All this was happening at the same time. So many of the contemporaneous comments about the video weren’t referring in any way to Benghazi. Now of course even in those countries it was about much much more than the video, but the video was certainly a piece of it one we felt we had to speak to so that our allies in those countries would back us up.
(In fact, as Judicial Watch famously uncovered in 2014, the “talking points” that provided the basis for Susan Rice’s false statements were created by the Obama White House.)
Judicial Watch requested records related to the Benghazi talking points in May 2014. In July 2014, it filed suit . The Clinton email finally released this month was first identified by the State Department in September, 2014 but was withheld from Judicial Watch despite it specifically referencing talking points. After it was specifically described in an Office of the Inspector General report , the court ordered its production. It was only after Judicial Watch informed the State Department it was prepared to file a motion with the court to compel production of the records that the Department relented and produced the 2012 email in question.
(In an August 22, 2019, hearing , U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth ordered production of the record in granting Judicial Watch significant new discovery in the case. Judge Lamberth said , “There is no FOIA exemption for political expedience, nor is there one for bureaucratic incompetence.” The judge also stated that the government has mishandled this case and the discovery of information including former Secretary Clinton’s emails so poorly that Judicial Watch may have the ability to prove they acted in “bad faith.”)
“This email is a twofer – it shows Hillary Clinton misled the U.S. Senate on Benghazi and that the State Department wanted to hide the Benghazi connection to the Clinton email scheme,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “Rather than defending her email misconduct, the Justice Department has more than enough evidence to reopen its investigations into Hillary Clinton.”
The court is considering whether to allow Judicial Watch to question Hillary Clinton and her top aide in person and under oath about the email and Benghazi controversies.
Last month, the State Department, under court order, finally provided Judicial Watch a previously hidden email , which shows top State Department officials used and were aware of Hillary Clinton’s email account.
Judicial Watch’s discovery over the last several months found many more details about the scope of the Clinton email scandal and cover-up:
DOJ has a new sign:
U.S.
DEPARTMENT
OF
JUSTICE(😂)
You also said:
" Here is hoping Trump, with the help of God, can do something miraculous and return truth and power to the American people."
Amen to that. Praying for miracles.
There will be no justice for her; just like there will be no justice for the principal current coup plotters like McCable, Brennen, Clapper, Comey, etc. unless the people rise up and overthrow the Deep State.
Thanks
Has Hillary Rotten Cliton announced that Fitton is a Russian operative yet?
Judicial Watch - It’s like having a political party.
It wouldn’t surprise me if the old bag does. :^)
I think I recall reading that the video had only about 25 views prior to the Benghazi attack. If true, I would doubt that it had a major impact on events.
Very good conclusion, grasshopper. If you were never free, then what was the purpose of brainwashing 100s of millions that they had agency? Could it be taken from the pages of standard animal husbandry, that the most productive herds are protected, peaceful and well fed? So, why upset the 10s of millions of loyal taxpayers working hard to finance their own captivity?
Furthermore, if the military is in favor of global engagements, therefore providing excellent career prospects for ambitious officers, then why "support the troops"? Where did that little ditty come from? What about the flag? Does is represent what you think it means, or is it actually a symbol of your own foolish belief and faith that government is acting fairly and honestly in you behalf?
Even FR is caught up in the game, offering hourly updates of 'conservative porn' for those who enjoy the guilty pleasure of fantasizing about a world of justice and punishment that doesn't really exist.
Now, I know it's hard for some to (finally) come to these conclusions, but it's been staring you in the face all along. As far as I'm concerned, the only real intrigue has been the question of how long the game has been going on. My best guess is 1913, when two amendments and the Fed reserve were created in that fateful year. So, over 100 years of a system of government that bears no resemblance to what is offered to support those wishing to remain either blissfully ignorant, or need an extra dosage of denial to keep themselves happy.
Exactly. R.I.P. Stevens, Smith, Doherty and Woods. Condolences to your families and friends.
Yep
Thanks. #8 BUMP!
'Conservative' is just a word. What many, probably most people here at FR want is a world in which life has value, and means something. That's a spiritual construct, not a political one. The politics we fight for and against are really only about protecting ourselves, our faith, our ideals, and our right to self-determinism from being trampled on in the secular world.
The world is not just. There are horrible unethical judges. A plethora of unethical attorneys, Juries with bias and agenda, and all kinds of ways for injustice to be served. The best we can do is to be aware, vigilant, and never, ever become so comfortable with what we 'have' materially such that we wouldn't be willing to lose it to preserve our spirituality, principles, and self-determinism. Lucky for us, a significant majority of those in 'power' are pathetically small people of limited skills - mostly because they've spent their lives pursuing the 'skill set' of deceit and self-promotion. These types of people miss the point, generally wind up disappointed with their lives, and always fall, eventually.
Please put me on your Benghazi ping list. I know Kris Paronto. Those men, true heroes, will never quit until the truth is told.
Many thanks to Judicial Watch for their dogged pursuit of the truth!
Your post is so depressing!
And yet, the desire to be experience liberty and freedom is innate in all animal species. It is not unique to humans, as any zebra roaming the plains could attest.
So, we pitiful creatures invent a philosophy of government and laws that is justified by positive attributes we ourselves conveniently ascribe.
But what of the lions? Don't they also desire peace and harmony, if only the lower, great unwashed masses would simply follow their lead and direction? Doesn't this describe every regime since pre-history through the current situation in DC?
Why are you so confident that current leadership is small & weak? Did you ever consider that perhaps they truly are the best & brightest? In that case, then they are entirely correct that the general population neither deserves nor will achieve parity.
So this difference in opinion describes the eternal power struggle - neither will concede. In that Marx was entirely correct, in noting the basic social tension is the class struggle. However, not silly capitalist vs labor, but 'normal' people wishing to the live their lives in peace vs the 1-2% psychopath segment whose entire existence is driven by the quest for power & control.
That's why he fight is eternal. Any relaxation of vigilance spells doom, which is what happened to the USA. Now we must fight to regain what we lost.
I agree entirely that the real eternal power struggle for us mortals is between those who just want to live in peace in define our own lives, and those with a pathological narcissistic need to feel that they are better than and more important than everyone else. Hillary exemplifies this. Further, leftist politics attracts people like this, as it affords them the best political platform from which to 'transform the world', and be the 'messiah' to the little people. It's truly sick. Actually, clinically sick.
Regarding why I think the current leadership is small and pathetic, and did I ever consider that perhaps they truly are the best & brightest, my answer is encapsulated in people like Hillary, AOC, Pelosi, Maxine Waters, Schiff, and office holders like the one who thought Guam might capsize and sink if too many people were allowed on the island.
To that point, that we have defined manipulable criteria in society as the way to determine the 'brightest & best' is a mistake that perpetuates mediocrity and favors the manipulators and narcissists. The brightest and best are not concentrated in the Ivy universities, and our Supreme Court would be much better if it wasn't exclusively inhabited by Yale and Harvard law school graduates.
Anyway, thanks for the always thoughtful posts.
P
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.