- Joined
- Feb 24, 2013
- Messages
- 35,033
- Reaction score
- 19,492
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Did Clinton Aides Withhold Damaging Benghazi Documents?
"“I told her that ‘My name is on TV and I’m on administrative leave, it seems like it’s about me.’ Then she said, ‘You’re not harmed, you’re still getting paid. Don’t watch TV. Take your wife on a cruise. It’s not about you; it’s about Hillary and 2016.”"
Interesting turn of events. If this is true then a federal crime has been committed.
Woah, interesting story. I never heard of this guy Maxwell until this.
If this is true, it's pretty ugly.
Did Clinton Aides Withhold Damaging Benghazi Documents?
"“I told her that ‘My name is on TV and I’m on administrative leave, it seems like it’s about me.’ Then she said, ‘You’re not harmed, you’re still getting paid. Don’t watch TV. Take your wife on a cruise. It’s not about you; it’s about Hillary and 2016.”"
A State Department spokesman calls the implication that documents were withheld “totally without merit.” Spokesman Alec Gerlach says “The range of sources that the ARB’s investigation drew on would have made it impossible for anyone outside of the ARB to control its access to information.”
Interesting turn of events. If this is true then a federal crime has been committed.
Seems pretty clear, but be aware this is a "spokesman" who has infinite deniablility. Beware all such phrases as "impossible for anyone" as they are patently untrue. Such denials were routine in the Watergate investigation too......turns out the whole show as on tape and every one of those direct denials was horse****A State Department spokesman calls the implication that documents were withheld “totally without merit.” Spokesman Alec Gerlach says “The range of sources that the ARB’s investigation drew on would have made it impossible for anyone outside of the ARB to control its access to information.”
Unless there are scraps of evidence that track back to this even (and I doubt there is) it's Maxwell's word against theirs. There may be more circumstantial evidence that may lend some credibility but no smoking gun unless someone took some of that evidence or, if more people come out and are willing to make statements under oath. I have no doubt this actually occurred though. If nothing else, this administration including the Clintons (historically speaking) are very adept at destroying evidence and keeping their asses out of the fire.
It's not partisan - it's factual. The IRS scandal which is on going should be enough to prove that.Please stop being so partisan. Every administration destroys evidence when they're about to have their asses dropped in the hot grease.
The Justice Department will not file criminal charges that lead back to Hillary - period. She is the DNC designate for 2016. You disagree?The Justice Department will not file criminal charges over the destruction of CIA videotapes depicting the harsh interrogation of terrorism suspects, limiting the legal fallout from one of the Bush administration's most fraught legacies, officials said Tuesday.
Must be a disgruntled employee, at least that's what I hear whenever I quote a former NSA, CIA or FBI official.
Unless there are scraps of evidence that track back to this even (and I doubt there is) it's Maxwell's word against theirs. There may be more circumstantial evidence that may lend some credibility but no smoking gun unless someone took some of that evidence or, if more people come out and are willing to make statements under oath. I have no doubt this actually occurred though. If nothing else, this administration including the Clintons (historically speaking) are very adept at destroying evidence and keeping their asses out of the fire.
I thought Hillary just "lost" evidence until the time limit expired.
Please stop being so partisan. Every administration destroys evidence when they're about to have their asses dropped in the hot grease.
The Justice Department will not file criminal charges over the destruction of CIA videotapes depicting the harsh interrogation of terrorism suspects, limiting the legal fallout from one of the Bush administration's most fraught legacies, officials said Tuesday.
No charges in destruction of CIA videotapes, Justice Department says
Lost or destroyed... at this point it's semantics.
Are you calling me an anti-semantic?
I will tell you that I have supported Israel since it was formed, two years before I was even born!
so there.
The Justice Department will not file criminal charges that lead back to Hillary - period. She is the DNC designate for 2016. You disagree?
Did Clinton Aides Withhold Damaging Benghazi Documents?
"“I told her that ‘My name is on TV and I’m on administrative leave, it seems like it’s about me.’ Then she said, ‘You’re not harmed, you’re still getting paid. Don’t watch TV. Take your wife on a cruise. It’s not about you; it’s about Hillary and 2016.”"
Interesting turn of events. If this is true then a federal crime has been committed.
A new report from discredited investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson baselessly suggested State Department staff removed damaging documents on Benghazi instead of turning them over to the Accountability Review Board (ARB) for investigation. But Attkisson's claims have been denied by the State Department and are based solely on speculations from a disgruntled employee after he was disciplined for his "lack of leadership" and engagement by the ARB.
In a September 15 report for The Daily Signal, a publication of the conservative Heritage Foundation, Attkisson reported that a former State Department diplomat alleges that "Hillary Clinton confidants were part of an operation to 'separate' damaging documents before they were turned over to the Accountability Review Board investigating security lapses surrounding the Sept. 11, 2012, terrorist attacks on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya." The Daily Signal described this as a "Benghazi Bombshell."...
"Scrubbed" Benghazi Docs "Bombshell" Is Based On Evidence-Free Report By Discredited Benghazi Hoax Architect | Blog | Media Matters for America
Lame, very lame indeed.Haha, Pete tries to discredit an article by Sheryl Attkisson for the Heritage Foundation with an article at Media Matters. :lamo
As usual, Media Matters progressive rabbit whole "proves" its allegations with links to other Media Matters articles because they know their readers are too shallow of thought to click the citation links.
That may be, but I think he was referring to the Clintons personally, as in Hillary "losing" documents damaging to her case until after the filing deadline. he has a past on that and it is appropriate to be raised in a discussion about the accusation she is at it again.
It's not partisan - it's factual. The IRS scandal which is on going should be enough to prove that.
The Justice Department will not file criminal charges that lead back to Hillary - period. She is the DNC designate for 2016. You disagree?
Lame, very lame indeed.
"But Attkisson's report has several flaws. It is based solely on conjecture from Maxwell, who does not claim and cannot prove that any documents were withheld from the ARB in its investigation, but rather only speculates about the fate of the documents that were reviewed"
No, Paul, Media Matters is twisting the story here. The witness said that the orders were to scrub the record of incriminating evidence. If those were the orders then that was a federal crime. The witness stated that he spoke with someone directly, and gave a name, that was controlling the event.
All Media Matters has to rely on, because it is a stupid, brain rotting garbage generator, is an AP article that says the State IG said that the AFB was independent... which has little to do with the claim.
Excuse me, but Sheryl Attkisson is the garbage generator, not Media Matters.
Excuse me, but Sheryl Attkisson is the garbage generator, not Media Matters.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?