Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

New communications about Libya suggest info was withheld from House Select Committee

New communications about Libya suggest info was withheld from House Select Committee

What did Sid Blumenthal know, and when did he know it?

Sid Blumenthal’s testimony before the House Select Committee on Benghazi created even more questions about former Secretary Clinton’s private email usage.

Blumenthal provided the committee with 60 new emails; emails the committee says the State Department did not provide. The State Department kicked the can back to Mrs. Clinton saying they didn’t turn over the Blumenthal emails because Mrs. Clinton never passed them on to the State Department.

This revelation only confirms suspicions that emails relevant to the Benghazi investigation exist, but have not been handed over to either the State Department or the House Select Committee.

Fox News reports:

Blumenthal’s emails also reveal he was working with left-leaning sites to “neutralize criticism” of Hillary’s mishandling of the Benghazi massacre. Politico reported:

“While still secretary of state, Clinton emailed back and forth with Blumenthal about efforts by one of the groups, Media Matters, to neutralize criticism of her handling of the deadly assault on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, sources tell POLITICO.

‘Got all this done. Complete refutation on Libya smear,’ Blumenthal wrote to Clinton in an Oct. 10, 2012, email into which he had pasted links to four Media Matters posts criticizing Fox News and Republicans for politicizing the Benghazi attacks and challenging claims of lax security around the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, according to a source who has reviewed the email exchange. Blumenthal signed off the email to Clinton by suggesting that one of her top aides, Philippe Reines, ‘can circulate these links,’ according to the source.”

As if that’s not bad enough, buried in the Politico article is this incestuous tidbit, “during this time, he [Blumenthal] also advised a pair of businesses seeking potentially lucrative contracts in Libya, while sharing intelligence on the country with Clinton while she was secretary of state.”

According to Fox News, the House Committee depositions will continue throughout the day. We will continue to monitor this story and keep you abreast of any relevant developments.

Follow Kemberlee Kaye on Twitter

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Whitewater never ended. We had a rapist for President, a liar, a totally corrupt man willing to sell everything he had ben entrusted in his offices. But how is Hillary different than the Bush Family in supporting Mr. Clinton? She was his first supporter. The Bushes came late, after the corruption was more obvious. After the rape of Mrs Broaddrick was known.

Who is more culpable? Hillary or the Bush family?

    Ragspierre in reply to bvw. | June 18, 2015 at 5:35 pm

    “But how is Hillary different than the Bush Family in supporting Mr. Clinton?”

    Moby troll question.

      You know, you used to really like my thoughtful posts. Now that last post of yours? A stalkier. Cheap shot.

        healthguyfsu in reply to bvw. | June 18, 2015 at 8:53 pm

        Against better judgment I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and answer honestly.

        The difference between Hillary and the Bush family is that the Bush family hasn’t committed any criminal acts and hasn’t been uncovered in any scandals. I don’t pretend to know their entire history but there have been numerous attempts to drum up scandal against them and all have failed (See Rather, Dan, et al.). Even still, idiot liberals try to call W a war criminal without any basis in the facts. Facts that include a bipartisan Congressional approval for the war in Iraq. Hilary and Obama BOTH voted in favor. They had the same intelligence that Bush had…that intelligence said WMD’s were in Iraq.

        Bush did not with hold any information or falsify any information and while idiot liberals like to run around with their little word games, their elected representatives never once attempted to bring any charges forth against him simply because they knew it would expose their complicity.

          Look I’ve always though that George Dubya is man of great character, and very honest. He was indeed honest about Iraq, and I have yet to hear of ANYTHING he as ever said or wrote that is dishonest. My call on the issue here is the Bush Family’s relationship with the Clinton’s. JEB Bush awarded Hillary a Liberty Medal in 2013 just one year after the Benghazi atrocity. They Bushes and Clintons work together in charity relief organizations. Partners and buddies so it all appears. And we know who corrupt, utterly selfish and parsimonious the Clinton’s charity operations are.

          But what is the message of that? That we are all HUMAN, true. That’s to the good side. They they, the three of them are of the SELECT and ELITE few that were Presidents. Well, dang, I DON’T LIKE THAT. I love the Harry S Truman model of modesty. NOT ELITE. Regular guy. Since CAMELOT,that wall between the folks and the President born of the JFK assassination has grown too big.

          The Bush Family do all a great wrong I now come to hold, by association with a known criminal enterprise. The Clintons.

          Sammy Finkelman in reply to healthguyfsu. | June 18, 2015 at 9:34 pm

          Bill Clinton has sought this relationship with the Bush family, and they’ve been foolish – or maybe better said, naive – enough to give it to him. George W. Bush even joked about the way Bill Clinton was getting close to his father.

          I think also they’ve tried to connect some people connected woth them to the Bush family ina few cases, or at least create the appearance of some relationshp. So you have epeople thinking that Prince Bandar was close to the Bush family.

          Before we get too far afield on this, a relationship between the Clintons and Bushes isn’t that unexpected or unreasonable. There is something to be said for “shared experience” of holding an office, regardless of personal politics / choices. This is especially true of the Presidency of the United States, because we, as a people, expect that if our President is young enough he will continue to be a reasonably productive member of the Civil Society after he leaves office.

          Clinton held that office with dishonor, and while that gives everybody a bad feeling, he held that office between George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush, and for that reason alone, they are going to be present at the same events, involved in certain charity and public works organizations, and contacting the same other world leaders.

          The loneliness that accompanies an office of that level of power/authority leads to a desire for “shared experience” with others of that office, if for no other reason than simply to be able to talk about some of the decisions, choices and tribulations that were present with someone who can ACTUALLY relate, because they were ALSO in that office.

    Apeon in reply to bvw. | June 19, 2015 at 1:37 am

    You are simply trying to Conflate the Bushes with the Clintons—–no comparison possible

Not A Member of Any Organized Political | June 18, 2015 at 4:21 pm

“….info was withheld from House Select Committee” WELL DUH!!!

Here’s an excerpt from one Blumenthal e-mail, congratulating Hillary for her brilliant strategy of removing Libya’s Quadaffi and urging Hillary to get in front of the t.v. cameras and take credit for it:

“First, brava! This is a historic moment and you will be credited for realizing it.
. . . .

The most important phrase is: “successful strategy.” …

This is a very big moment historically and for you. History will tell your part in it. You are vindicated.”

His sycophancy is nauseating. But even worse is his — and Hillary’s — utter cluelessness about the disaster her “successful strategy” of toppling Quadaffi, without any plan for what would fill the power vacuum once he was gone, would cause.

I just hope Blumenthal is right about history telling Hillary’s part in creating this clusterf*ck. But given his track record, that’s probably just wishful thinking.

Sammy Finkelman | June 18, 2015 at 4:52 pm

You’re missing the biggest part of the story.

Last night (or was it this morning?) I spotted this story on the bottom left hand corner of page A4 of the wednesday, June 17, 2015 Wall Street Journal

http://www.wsj.com/articles/clinton-aide-didnt-write-libya-memos-1434511441

Sidney Blumnethal told reporters he didn’t write any of these e-mails.

Instead, he said,

the author is a ‘respected, former high ranking CIA official’

Who was paying him? Was he being paid to tell the truth as he saw it, or write plausible sounding lies in line with somebody’s spin? What did he do while in the CIA? Who else in the CIA is he allied with? For what country are they moles??

Here is a paragraph or two from the article:

Mr. Blumenthal said the author of the intelligence memos is a “respected, former high-ranking CIA official,” but declined to reveal the person’s name or answer questions.

House Republicans also declined to identify the author of the memos.

I am not sure they actually beleived Sidney Blumenthal, but if he confessed to the extra mail maybe he is also correct about the author since the motive would be to avoid jail. Assuming that what he told the reporters is wjhhat he told the committee.

And I still have a question:

Are any of these e-mails the same ones leaked by Russia said to have been hacked by Guccifer?

Because if they are, that would mean thse e-mails were written by someone working for Russian intelligence. I tend to think they are not.

The committee plans to release them all so maybe we will see if any of them were the “Guccifer” ones

Just curious–why is Sid Vicious turning over new emails? What does the House Committee have on him?

Sammy Finkelman | June 18, 2015 at 5:01 pm

More from the wall Street Journal article:

Rep. Trey Gowdy (R., S.C.), chairman of the Republican-led House Select Committee on Benghazi investigating the 2012 terrorist attacks on a U.S. diplomatic facility in Libya that killed four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens, said Mr. Blumenthal’s testimony showed that “he was passing on information authored by someone else, and he has no idea about the credibility or the reliability of any of the sources.’’

Mr. Gowdy said the disclosure shows that “one of the folks providing her the largest volume of information was simply and merely a conduit of someone who—it’s still unclear—but may have had business interests in Libya.”

He has to be talking about the former CIA official, not Blumenthal. I mean Blumenthal himseld definitely, not maybe, did have businessess interests in Libya.

ONE OF THE FOLKS = Sid Blumenthal

SOMEONE (he was a conduit for) = the nameless former high-ranking CIA official.

Does Trey Goudy think the explanation for the CIA official either writing himself or putting his name to something someboody else wrote is “business interests???”

No, it’s got to be a foreign intelligence organzation. Even if you find a business interest.

And that CIA official was probably involved with them when he was still at the CIA. I mean CIA people consopiured to get rid of their director.

And they were the ones who said it was spontaneous.

Sammy Finkelman | June 18, 2015 at 5:36 pm

Sidney Blumenthal has an attorney, who, no doubt, has no conflict of interest, and cannot rely on Hillary Clinton being elected president and pardoning him.

So the best advice to him is to answer the questions truthfully. And his email was maybe hacked too.

Now it actually should be no surprise that many of these e-mails are new.

The e-mails that Hillary Clinton turned over were produced through a search. They would have included only those that she forwarded to someone with a state.gov address, but not any that she didn’t forward except those that turned up in a search for the words Libya or Benghazi and a few other search terms. The actual words.

That doesn’t mean ones that a librarian might have classified as concerning Benghazi or Libya, but that actually used the very words Benghazi and Libya and so on.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clintons-deleted-emails-individually-reviewed-spokesman/story?id=29654638

According to that document from the earlier news conference, here is a summary of how Clinton’s attorneys, whom she tasked with the job, said they sorted through, but it specifically did not say each e mail was read.

• First, a search was done of all emails Clinton received from a .gov or state.gov account during the period she was secretary of state — from 2009 to 2013.

• Then, with the remaining emails, a search was done for names of 100 State Department and other U.S. government officials who Clinton may have had correspondence with during her tenure.

• Next, the emails were organized and reviewed by sender and recipient to “account for non-obvious or non-recognizable email addresses or misspellings or other idiosyncrasies.”

• Lastly, of the emails still left over, a “number of terms” were searched, including “Benghazi” and “Libya.”

The results of the searching were that Clinton’s attorneys found 30,490 work-related emails and 31,830 emails that were deemed “private and personal.”

Now, the search terms were negotiated with the State Department and probably reverse-engineered.

The State Department also probably didn’t turn over to the committee everything they wanted.

    I’ve never understood the get out of jail free the Clinton’s have ever enjoyed. Clinton should have (yeah, I know, should, would, could all words signaling despair, which is unhealthy, but I claim a contextual exemption here) been stopped out from further progress upstream after he was State Attorney General in Arkansas. He left enough muddy tracks there — from the rape, to the sale of prison blood, the bribery-in-kind that was obvious enough. Sort of Jerry Sandusky sized muddy prints for those as cared to look.

    Why didn’t anyone in AUTHORITY look? Back in the days some folks pointed to Mena Airport. And operations South of the Border. Well, I STILL don’t understand why we invaded Panama. Or why the Eugene Hassenfus stuff wasn’t followed up more. I mean by reporter boots on the ground in Central America. Really. I don’t count lightweight pieces on mega data stuff captured by Snowden. As Real Reporting. It isn’t.

    An interesting piece. Now we’re all on a diversionary trip way out into the weeds with a bunch of very serious people earnestly discussing search terms and semantics, a twenty first century version of the meaning of “is.” Meaan

    “Everything is what was asked for. Period. A local sheriff with some deputies and a couiple of golks from the local Best Buy Geek Sq, a couple ofdeputies

    An interesting piece. We’re now on a diversionary trip way out into the weeds with a bunch of serious, earnest folks discussing search terms when what should have been done is a local sheriff with some deputies and folks from the local Best Buy Geek Squad sent to pick up the servers and files. What we now have instead is a twenty first century version of the meaning “is.”
    If that sounds petty and trite, it was meant to. If that, or an “official” version of it involving government agents, had taken place as it should have, everything requested would be in hand and serious work could be underway in the back room while the big, shrill discussion on the MSM would be about some Republican congressional committee’s outrageous actions and witch hunt.
    Hell, if the “hack” of OPM records is as serious as it’s reported to be, the Chinese know more than the American people and can make Hillary and Bill dance like a couple of marionettes, never mind the entire presidential election cycle. No, they wouldn’t do that.
    The whole lousy lot of them is sickening.

      bvw in reply to Owego. | June 19, 2015 at 7:43 am

      The Chinese have always had puppet ties to the Clintons: look up Little Rock Chinese restaurant owner Charlie Trie, bagman middleman, or Mochtar Riady and Indonesian Coal, or John Huang, from Hong Kong, who picked up the connect after Riady went LA — one reason to set up bigger money fund pipes for the Clinton machine (see Maria Hsia). Huang went to jail: conspiracy. Yes there ARE real conspiracies. Indonesian connections may also be a factor in the time of Obama, perhaps the Indonesian’s had a stronger “bond” with Obama.

      But the Chinese have a big tent, and even the Bushes have gotten caught in its folds. Uncle Neil Bush caught in a few honey traps. Look that up.

so Obama/DoS withheld intel on gun running, buildup 2 Muslim Terror Attack and Benghazi terror attack… only news 2 the leftist media which wont publish it now.

The continuing saga of Mrs. Scum – soon to be humiliated once again by being elbowed out of the way once again.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend