Image 01 Image 03

Hillary Clinton’s Secret #Benghazi Phone Call

Hillary Clinton’s Secret #Benghazi Phone Call

If it’s almost 100% redacted, does it count as “unclassified”?

Another day, another tiny, minuscule, pin-width beam of light shining down on who knew what, when, and how during and in the wake of the 2012 attacks on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi.

Most recently, we saw Sid Blumenthal, having been dragged before a Congressional committee, providing investigators with a batch of then-Secretary Clinton’s private e-mails that the State Department failed to hand over. The very existence of those e-mails had members of the committee convinced that their much-maligned digging is not only justified, but necessary in the effort to figure out what was in the Administration’s collective hive mind in the wake of the attacks.

We already knew that Clinton and Obama spoke on the night of the Benghazi attacks; what we didn’t know is what they talked about. But finally! A federal court has released a new document, the contents of which have the potential to blow this whole thing wide open.

The problem? The “unclassified” document is almost completely redacted:

redacted clinton email 600 wide

READOUT OF PRESIDENT’S CALL TO SECRETARY CLINTON: *crickets* Does it count as “unclassified” if it’s covered in correction tape?

Of course, the Administration has a totally predictable excuse for all the white-out. They’re not arguing that the information contained in the call was classified, but that it “represents internal deliberations” about the 2012 attack.

This e-mail was released as part of a FOIA demand made by activist group Judicial Watch, and it’s a vital link in the timeline.

Via Fox News:

The emails also show that Rhodes, on the night of Sept. 11, 2012, and before the attack was over, endorsed a statement from Clinton that cited an anti-Islam Internet video.

That statement noted some tried to justify the assault “as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet.” Rhodes told Clinton’s aides that “we should let State Department statement be our comment for the night.”

The following day, Sept. 12, Meehan sent an email to State and NSC officials saying Rhodes would host a conference call that morning “to ensure we are all in sync on messaging for the rest of the day.”

It’s one more piece in the corrupt, secretive puzzle that conservatives have been trying to assemble ever since the Benghazi attacks. It’s not just a battle—it’s a full-out war; members of Congress, activists, lawyers, and the media have all tried to get their hands on information describing how the Administration approached the siege and murders, and every time something has surfaced, that information has served not to vindicate but to cast an even deeper shadow on both the Obama White House and the Clinton State Department:

Other emails from Judicial Watch lawsuits have, separately, shown Rhodes played a central role in preparing former U.N. ambassador Susan Rice for her Sunday show appearances that weekend where she blamed protests over the Internet video.

In that Sept. 14 email, Rhodes specifically draws attention to the video, without distinguishing whether the Benghazi attack was different from protests elsewhere in the region.

The email lists the following two goals, among others:

“To underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy.”

“To reinforce the President and Administration’s strength and steadiness in dealing with difficult challenges.”

Everything is propaganda, but this was particularly destructive propaganda—and when they figured that out, they tried to cover it up. It’s the worst sort of malpractice, the proof of which leaks out with every e-mail and record that is released to the public.

This investigation has been long, drawn out, and controversial—but it’s also based in the belief that the truth is out there.

If the Administration’s actions are any indication, we’re closer than ever to finding it.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


“Unclassified”? No.

Covered-up? Oh, yeah.

    Gremlin1974 in reply to Ragspierre. | June 29, 2015 at 3:49 pm

    This entire administration has been a cover up. 😉

      Ragspierre in reply to Gremlin1974. | June 29, 2015 at 3:58 pm

      Except when national security and the lives of real people were on the line.

      Ask SEAL Team 6.

        clintack in reply to Ragspierre. | June 29, 2015 at 4:26 pm

        Or the Pakistani doctor who gave us Bin Laden…

        inspectorudy in reply to Ragspierre. | June 29, 2015 at 4:54 pm

        Speaking of SEAL team six read the written version of FNC’s documentary on Libya and what obama and hillary did to the entire world. One of the off shoots of their failed “Zero footprint” program was feeding weapons to the “Friendly” insurgents in Syria to fight Assad. One of the shoulder fired anti air weapons that brought down the CH 47 that SEAL team six was on was also fired at another CH 47 that was brought down but did not crash and burn. They found fragments of the missile and the serial number was on one of the fragments. It was a US Stinger that was checked out to the CIA. As fast as the weapons were being transferred through Benghazi they were being transported to the Taliban in Afghanistan. Then we throw in the vacuum left by the overthrow of Gaddafi in Libya, the vacuum left by the lack of US troops in Iraq and we have ISIS. It is a good read at the Conservative treehouse web site.

          Sammy Finkelman in reply to inspectorudy. | June 30, 2015 at 7:43 pm

          The USA was NOT sendinng missiles to Libya. the US was trying to sotp it. That’s probably why Ambassador Stevens was killed. certain US “allies” were sendinng missiles to the wrong people in Syria. Probably Qatar Turkey and Saudi Arabia whle Prince Bandar (who probably killed Vincent Foster) was intelligence chief.

Sammy Finkelman | June 29, 2015 at 5:41 pm

Most recently, we saw Sid Blumenthal, having been dragged before a Congressional committee, providing investigators with a batch of then-Secretary Clinton’s private e-mails that the State Department failed to hand over

The state Department now says they never got it – there are about 15 emails out of the 60 or so that Blumenthal handed over taht they don’t have.

Which of course was to be expected. Hillary Clinton only sent e-mails that were sent to addresses plus some taht were retreived by a few search terms like Benghazi” or “Libya” This was all probably reverse engineered to avoid the most damaging e-mails. (there are actually some pretty damaging ones in the document dump – like one where Blumenthal tells her he got an article published in Slate.)

The only reason any Blumenthal e-mails were made available was that Hillary Clinton forwarded many of them to State. Blumenthal probably made all of his available because he was cautioned by his lawyer.

Sammy Finkelman | June 29, 2015 at 5:45 pm

Those Blumenthal e-mails were actually written by former CIA official Tyler Drumheller.

And what do we know about Tyler Drumheller?

According to Drumheller the Bush administration ignored CIA advice and used whatever information it could find to justify an invasion of Iraq. The CIA, brokered by the French intelligence service, recruited Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri in Europe during the late summer of 2002.[1] Sabri told the CIA in September that Saddam had no major active weapons of mass destruction programs; they had no fissile material and biological weapons were almost non-existent, although he claimed that there were chemical weapons. This information was then transmitted to the White House, but it was ignored in favor of the information acquired by Germany’s intelligence service Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND) coming from a source known as Curveball.[2]

On September 6, 2007, Sidney Blumenthal, reporting at, supported Drumheller’s account: “Now two former senior CIA officers have confirmed Drumheller’s account to me and provided the background to the story of how the information that might have stopped the invasion of Iraq was twisted in order to justify it.”[3]

This takes us back to the Plame case really.

Since she became Secretary of State and spent 4 years boozing her way around the word, she’s been in a death spiral.

It’s not only been fun to watch, but also rewarding to know Clinton will likely hand a victory to the Tea Party candidate.

It’s worse than that: of the emails Hillary DID turn over to State, at least a few were edited to omit things which might embarrass Clinton or Obama, for instance arrangements for post-revolution oil sales. And if a few were edited and discovered only because Blumenthal turned over his own unedited copies, how many others do you think were edited to remove unfavorable passages, or omitted altogether?

– –

Incidentally, two of Obama’s top National Security aides, Ben Rhodes and Tommy Vietor, came to his attention in the same way: as drivers for Senator Obama in the early days of the 2008 campaign.

    Sammy Finkelman in reply to Estragon. | June 30, 2015 at 2:47 pm

    It’s worse than that: of the emails Hillary DID turn over to State, at least a few were edited to omit things which might embarrass Clinton or Obama

    No, I think not turning them over in the first place is worse than redacting them once the State Departmenmt already had them. The editing at least you know.


Sammy Finkelman | June 30, 2015 at 2:44 pm

Incidentally, two of Obama’s top National Security aides, Ben Rhodes and Tommy Vietor, came to his attention in the same way: as drivers for Senator Obama in the early days of the 2008 campaign.

Ben Rhodes and Tommy Vietor!!!

Those are the two who, in the “talking points” e-mails released in 2013, said that those people who thought the attack was premeditated, had “disinformation.”

(I found this: Nobody else noticed this in the released emails)

Tommy Vietor e-mail, Friday, September 14, 2012 8:43 pm EST:

There is massive disinformation out there, in particular with Congress. They all think it was premeditated based on inaccurate assumptions or briefings. So I think this is a response not only to a tasking from the house intel committee but also NSC guidance that we need to brief members/press and correct the record.

The Jake Sullivan this was a reply to (he had asked what is this all about?) was the person in the State Department that Hillary Clinton would send the Blumenthal/Tyler Drumheller dispatches to first from her secret e-mail address, asking him to forward it around the government but to keep Sidney Blumenthal’s name out if it. Bill Clinton recently arranged and presided over his marriage. I think he was and is more of a “useful idiot” than an in-the-know co-conspirator with Bill and Hillary Clinton.

And Benjamin J. Rhodes Friday, September 14, 2012 9:34 pm:

There is a ton of wrong information getting out into the public domain from Congress and people who are not particularly informed. Insofar as we have firmed up assessments that don’t compromise Intel or the Investigation, we need to have the capability to correct the record as there are sigificant policy and messaging ramifications that would flow from a hardened mis-impression.

Who is the one who had the mis-impression?

Congress and the public, or Benjamin J. Rhodes?

Sammy Finkelman | June 30, 2015 at 2:45 pm

I think the problem is in the CIA.