Judicial Watch: Hillary Says Bengahzi Attack Was Terror-related, Not About Film
. . . the day after the attack occurred
Here at LI, we’ve been following with great interest the work that Judicial Watch is doing regarding Hillary Clinton’s involvement in the September 11, 2012 terrorist attack that left four men—an American ambassador (Christopher Stevens), two former Navy SEALS (Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty), and one embassy aide (Sean Smith)—brutally murdered.
In one such report from Judicial Watch we learned that Hillary had slept through a security meeting following the Benghazi attack, and now Judicial Watch reveals that on September 12, 2012, Hillary spoke with then-Egyptian Prime Minister Hisham Kandil and informed him that the terror attacks had nothing to do with the film; within days, everyone from Obama to then-U. S. ambassador the U. N. Susan Rice to Hillary herself publicly blamed the film.
Another piece of the scandal surrounding Hillary Clinton and Benghazi fell into place this week when the State Department released to us new documents containing telephone transcripts from the evening of September 12, 2012.
The documents reveal that the then-Secretary of State informed then-Egyptian Prime Minister Hisham Kandil that the deadly terrorist attack on the U.S. compound the day before “had nothing to do with the film.”
You will recall that on the evening of September 11, Mrs. Clinton issued an official State Department press statement, approved by the White House, placing the blame for the attack on an Internet video:
Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet. The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear: There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind.
Yet the next day, September 12, in her conversation with Kandil, Clinton said, “We know the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack – not a protest.” Kandil responded, “You’re not kidding. Based on the information we saw today we believe that group that claimed responsibility for this is affiliated with al-Qaeda.”
Even more damaging to Hillary—and possibly to her presidential ambitions—was her insistence during a Democrat debate that the Benghazi families who report that she told them that the video was responsible are lying.
Not only did the administration know about the attack ten days before it happened, but the day after, Hillary was clearly well aware that the film had nothing to do with the Benghazi terror attack. Apparently, it is she who is “wrong, absolutely wrong” about what she told the Benghazi victims’ families.
Judicial Watch reports the details of the phone conversation with Kandil:
Yet the next day, September 12, in her conversation with Kandil, Clinton said, “We know the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack – not a protest.” Kandil responded, “You’re not kidding. Based on the information we saw today we believe that group that claimed responsibility for this is affiliated with al-Qaeda.”
Two days after this conversation took place, she, along with Obama who also knew better, told the victims’ families and the nation that the film was responsible for the “protest” that resulted in the deadly attack.
You may recall that on September 28, 2012 the filmmaker was arrested on other charges and then held without bail before being released eleven months later.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
“Not only did the administration know about the attack ten days before it happened…”
What evidence is there of this? It’s the title of the article you linked to, but that’s not what the article itself actually says. The quoted document there only says that the attack had been planned ten days earlier. There’s absolutely no suggestion that the administration knew about it in advance.
Follow the links ….
https://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/pgs-394-398-396-from-jw-v-dod-and-state-14-812/
You can download and/or print it ALL.
Why do politicians always lie to their constituents?
Birds fly. Fish swim. Politicians lie.
Not like this dirtbag. Besides, some politicians have talent. Mrs. Scum has none, other than stealing while in a position of public trust.
They don’t “always lie”. Not any more than you or I “always lie”.
People lie. Never knew a person who hasn’t. Some of us are liars, however, and some of us work hard at NEVER lying.
It’s a matter of who you chose to be.
In statecraft, there are things a leader HAS to lie about as a strategery. Think of Winston Churchill, who is not known for being a big fat liar. But he and his government told lies a LOT, and for very good reasons.
Then think of Dollar Bill Clinton, who certainly was, is, and will be a liar until he assumes room temp.
At this point I’m frankly more sick of the RINO bullshit about Benghazi than I am about Benghazi itself.
Yes. Clinton lied. Obama lied. Susan Rice lied. There is ample evidence of this.
And all the Republicans want to do is score a couple sound bytes and look good.
They have no interest in actually doing anything about it.
The benefit of a two party system is that each party watches the other. They are suppose to score political points when they expose the sins of the other party. Their is no other consequense accept disgrace and prison. You have to have exposure before that can happen.
Your whining about Republicans scoring political points is providing cover to Clinton’s betrayal of our people in Benghazi and of our country.
The fact that she lied bothers me less than the fact that they took a Political Prisoner. (even if it was under different charges)
That act was political theater and government-sponsored terrorism.
I went to see “13 Hours” when it was first released. (A better film than “Lone Survivor” or “American Sniper.”) I was with two friends, all of us veterans. When we came out of the theater, one of my friends asked me, “What did you think?” I was so furious, I couldn’t speak for a minute, and had to compose myself in order to do so. Hillary Clinton belongs in front of a firing squad (and so do others).