Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

State Department releases Hillary’s heavily redacted Benghazi emails

State Department releases Hillary’s heavily redacted Benghazi emails

Or what’s left of them after redaction

The Department of State released 296 emails from Hillary Clinton’s private email account early this afternoon.

We’re sifting through the emails one at a time, but this is what we’ve found thus far:

Based on this chunk of emails, the majority of Mrs. Clinton’s communications with her staff involved abreviated printing directive, “Pls print.” “Heavily redacted” is a generous description of this Friday document dump.

Hillary Clinton email redactions Benghazi scandal president 2016

Two days after the Benghazi attacks, a Clinton aid sent an email summarizing the President’s phone conversations with Libyan and Egyptian presidents. But we’ll never know what those conversations entailed because, well…

hillary clinton emails redacted responses secretary of state benghazi classified information scandal

In a press conference a few weeks after it was revealed Mrs. Clinton used a private email account for the duration of her tenure as Secretary of State, Clinton said no classified information was sent from her private email account.

As we noted at the time, how Mrs. Clinton was able to function as the Secretary of State and not transmit classified information via email as she claimed is… suspect. Further, if this email sample is indicative of what the State Department does on a daily basis, then we must wonder what they actually do, aside from passing around Politico articles.

Immediately after the 9/11 attacks on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, there are multiple references to an anonymous, “sensitive source” who claimed the now famous YouTube video agitated demonstrators and ultimately resulted in the attack.

annonymous source youtube video benghazi hillary clinton secretary of state

Here, the source is listed as a senior security officer, and multiple causes — not one, were said to be the reason for the attacks.

security official accounts of benghazi emails hillary clinton scandal state department

That morphed into the State Department’s position that the YouTube video was solely responsible despite other evidence to the contrary.

Susan Rice This Week Benghazi Scandal Hillary Clinton Emails

There’s also this:

We’ll keep you posted as we and others are able to dig through these more thoroughly.

Follow Kemberlee Kaye on Twitter

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Sammy Finkelman | May 22, 2015 at 3:13 pm

revealed Mrs. Clinton used a private email account for the duration of her tenure as Secretary of State, Clinton said no classified information was sent from her private email account. If that were truly the case, the redactions must be erroneous, right?

No, for two reasons:

1) If classified, they weren’t classified until later.

2) It doesn’t have to be “classified” to be redacted.

Hillary Clinton says she did not have classified e-mail on her server, because all classified e-mail is sent in a separate secure network to which that server was not connected to.

    Gremlin1974 in reply to Sammy Finkelman. | May 23, 2015 at 3:55 am

    Annnnd, I would believe her for what reason?

    NavyMustang in reply to Sammy Finkelman. | May 23, 2015 at 8:07 am

    It really doesn’t matter if Hillary sent “classified” or not. Of course, any “classified” would be gravy, but there is no government on earth which wouldn’t be slobbering buckets over the thought of having access to the U.S. SecState’s private email.

    buckeyeminuteman in reply to Sammy Finkelman. | May 24, 2015 at 6:54 am

    If you think all classified info resides on its own special, secure network like its supposed to you’re obviously ignorant of what the biggest loophole in the system is…the user. Classified doesn’t have to cross networks between SIPR and NIPR, any known classified info can be typed up on a NIPR email and sent to literally anyone, including the guy who sends you emails for Canadian Viagra. Know what you’re talking about before you make nefarious statements like there’s no possible way classified info could be on her server.

Sammy Finkelman | May 22, 2015 at 3:18 pm

But we’ll never know what those conversations entailed because, well…

Not never, but it’s not very likely before the 2016 election. At least without a leak or somebody’s testimony to which executive privilege is waived.

AIf all else fails, eventually you’ll be able to find the answer to that question in the Obama library in Chicago, at least if you get a special waiver. Or maybe trhough the FVoiA after it gets declassified.

Not A Member of Any Organized Political | May 22, 2015 at 3:29 pm

I understand there is software that can undo the redacted cover up – no?

The Cairo demonstration was planned at least a month in advance by Muslim Brotherhood leaders. The demonstration was boosted by spontaneous demonstrators because Egyptian national TV broadcast part of the offensive video the night before, claiming it was being broadcast nationally in the US.

Egyptian national TV is controlled by the government, then controlled by Obama’s MB pal, Morsi – who coincidentally released one of the ringleaders of the Benghazi attack from a Cairo prison just over two weeks before the assault.

– –

It’s not illegal to possess classified information if it was acquired before it was classified.

We have to be careful about trying to find technical violations. It will play into the Clintons’ hands. They are very experienced at handling scandals, being lifelong criminals.

    Sammy Finkelman in reply to Estragon. | May 22, 2015 at 4:01 pm

    The Cairo demonstration was planned at least a month in advance by Muslim Brotherhood leaders.

    I didn’t know this, but this is considstenmt anyway – I just didn’t know they left behind evidence – taht the video was publicized, and probably uploaded and probably made at the expense and by an agent of the Moslem Brotherhood or allies of it.

    That was a very strange video that masqueraded as a pro-Moslem video when advertised (the title is “Inmnocence of muslims”)

Sammy Finkelman | May 22, 2015 at 3:51 pm

Here, the source is listed as a senior security officer, and multiple causes — not one, were said to be the reason for the attacks.

A senior Libyan security officer.

Peobably Wanis al-Sharif, then the Libyan deputy minister for the Interior in charge of eastern Libya, whose name is spelled in the Latin alphabet in a variety of different ways.

Wanis al-Sharef by CBS.

Wanis al-Sharif by the Wall Street Journal.

Wanis el-Sharif by the New York Times.

    Sammy Finkelman in reply to Sammy Finkelman. | May 22, 2015 at 3:57 pm

    See, for example:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/14/world/africa/libya-attacks-came-in-two-waves-official-says.html?_r=0

    BENGHAZI, Libya — The mayhem here that killed four United States diplomatic personnel, including the ambassador, was actually two attacks — the first one spontaneous and the second highly organized and possibly aided by anti-American infiltrators of Libya’s young government, a top Libyan security official said Thursday.

    The account by the official, Wanis el-Sharif, given to a few reporters here, was the most detailed yet of the chaotic events on Tuesday in this eastern Libyan city that killed J. Christopher Stevens, the first United States ambassador to be killed on duty in more than 30 years.

    Mr. Sharif, a deputy interior minister, said Mr. Stevens and a second American diplomat, Sean Smith, were killed in the initial attack, which began as a disorganized but angry demonstration by civilians and militants outside the American Consulate on Tuesday, the anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. The protest escalated into an assault by as many as 200 people, some armed with grenades, who set the building on fire.

    The second wave, Mr. Sharif said, was hours later, when the consulate staff was being spirited to a safe house a mile away. At that point, a team of Libyan security officials was evacuating them in a convoy guarded by Marines and Libyan security officials who had been flown from Tripoli to retrieve them.

    Mr. Sharif said the second attack was a premeditated ambush on the convoy by assailants who were armed with rocket-propelled grenades and apparently knew the route the vehicles were taking…..

    …“The first part was chaotic and disorganized. The second part was organized and planned,” he said. The ambushers in the second assault, he said, apparently “had infiltrators who were feeding them the information.”

    Parts of Mr. Sharif’s account were not consistent with what other Libyan witnesses have said, and his version has not been corroborated by American officials, who have said it remains unclear how and where Mr. Stevens was killed….

    All this was on page A10 of the Friday, September 14, 2012, New York Times, under the the headline: In Libya, Chaos Was Followed by Organized Ambush, Official Says

“Hillary Clinton appears to confuse Chris Stevens and Sean Smith, both of whom were killed in Benghazi”

Ha! Little people. Pieces on a chess board. I mean, how much could they do for Ol’ Walleyes, really? When did she ever pay any attention to these nothings?

    Observer in reply to Ragspierre. | May 22, 2015 at 5:54 pm

    After he was dead, both Hillary Clinton and Barry Obama were referring to “Chris” (Stevens) as their “friend” or even their “good friend.”

    Apparently Ambassador Stevens just wasn’t a good enough “friend” of Hillary’s for her to keep details about his whereabouts secure, even though she knew he was in a very dangerous place and had been begging her for better security for months.

Sammy Finkelman | May 22, 2015 at 4:17 pm

Lachlan Markay‏@lachlan·1h1 hour ago

Hillary Clinton appears to confuse Chris Stevens and Sean Smith, both of whom were killed in Benghazi

.
Not necessarily Hillary Clinton. Her close aide, Cheryl Mills, may have supplied it to her.

Somebody, at least, seems to think only one person was killed, and doesn’t have his name down solid. But anyway, however the name “Chris Smith” started, whether Cheryl Mills or somebody else said that to Hillary, or Hillary misremembered the name, that’s right in one respect – Hillary does not seem to know the name of the Ambassador by heart.

She seems to be the first one on that e-mail thread.

Sopmeone apparently heard both names and thought they were one person.

    Sammy Finkelman in reply to Sammy Finkelman. | May 22, 2015 at 4:21 pm

    Jake Sullivan: “our view that this started spontaneously and then evolved”

    That means the U.S. government position. Jake Sullivan may believe it to be, if not certain, possibly true. He was not really all that familiar with the events.

    Gremlin1974 in reply to Sammy Finkelman. | May 23, 2015 at 3:58 am

    Which does not change the fact that she is responsible. Regardless of what aide gave her the information she is responsible.

To now classify Hillary’s emails, after the fact, does not excuse her from breaking the law while sending or receiving the same information. The criteria for deeming something “classified” (as outlined by Executive Order 13526) is met when “unauthorized disclosure of the information reasonably could be expected to result in damage to the national security.” If Hillary didn’t understand when she conducted writing and conversing with emails that are “now” (since being released) classified then she was clearly unqualified to be allowed access to any sensitive information much less classified information!

Did any of you know Hillary and Obama were behind Fast&Furious in a clear attempt to undermine the 2nd Amendment?

Get this: Hillary spoke in Mexico City in March of 2009 and she said “Our inability to prevent weapons from being illegally smuggled across the border to arm these criminals causes the deaths of police officers, soldiers and civilians.” http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03

On May 3rd of 2009, Obama spoke in Mexico City and said “We recognize that most of the guns used to commit violence here in Mexico come from the United States. In America, our Constitution guarantees our individual right to bear arms, and as President I swore an oath to uphold that right—and I always will. At the same time, as I’ve said back home, I will continue to do everything in my power to pass common sense gun reforms that keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people—reforms that will save lives in both our countries. Meanwhile, we’ll keep increasing the pressure on the gun traffickers who bring illegal guns into Mexico, and we’ll keep putting these criminals where they belong—behind bars.” http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/

“From 2009 – 2011, under Operation Fast and Furious, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) Phoenix Field Division, along with other partners, allowed illegal gun sales, believed to be destined for Mexican drug cartels.” http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/27/

Funny thing about timelines. They tell a factual story you can’t argue with. . .

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend