Thread: WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE???

Hillary on film committing a felony. Nothing ever happened.
Benghazi? Maybe this will be the 'wooden stake' we've been waiting for?
Banned by the Media - Hillary! Uncensored

Click on the above link to see her on film committing a felony punishable by 5 years in Federal Prison.





Uploaded on Apr 18, 2010
http://hillaryuncensored.com
Banned by the Media - The Shocking video Hillary Clinton doesn't want you to see!
Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Then, there's the Clintons...

PLEASE RATE THIS VIDEO

This is the video that's been buzzing around the blogs for the past few months, becoming one of the most viewed on Google Video. It shows the Peter Paul side of the issue, which involves allegations that Hillary Clinton has committed numerous federal election law violations, has lied about them to cover them up, all culminating in what might be felonious conduct on her part. Paul makes a strong case here. Will the media continue to do its best to bury what might be the largest election fraud in US history? Stay tuned...

This is the most shocking expose on the blatant corruption surrounding Hillary Clinton. Includes exclusive home videos of Hillary to expose the illegalities that elected Hillary to the Senate and the obstructions of justice that keep her there.

• Category
  
  News & Politics

Benghazi Cover Up Bombshells Exploding in Midst of Release of Documents

Pamela Geller May 8, 2014

We now have the evidence that the State Department knew right away that Benghazi was a jihad terror attack. We know that Susan Rice knew. Barack Obama also knew and lied to the American people.
The Democrats are threatening to boycott the select committee on the Benghazi jihad attack on September 11,2012. The media is cheering their subterfuge on, hoping to normalize glaring un-Americanism, so that the president can easily follow suit. Once again, the Democrats overreach. Does the Watergate-flogging party mean to stump for the suppression of the truth about the slaughter of our countrymen? Is that their campaign platform? Do they really believe they are going to win on a platform of propaganda?

The emails make it perfectly clear that it was known from the outset that Islamic terrorists planned and coordinated the attacks on our consulate in Benghazi.
Treason is the accurate term for the actions of the Obama administration in the aftermath of Benghazi. The president knew within 24 hours that it was Islamic terror.
And yet in the post-Benghazi fallout, Obama continued to attack and blame free speech for the Benghazi slaughter. Obama, along with Hillary Clinton, starred in a paid advertisement condemning the video insulting Islam. These paid advertisements (funded with American taxpayer dollars) ran in Pakistan. This presidential attack on our freedom and our Constitution was the Obama administration's primary response to the deadly Islamist attack on September 11, 2012.
He knew. He knew from the very first.
In reviewing the cache of new documents just released as a result of Judicial Watch's successful FOIA lawsuit, it is clear that there is more incriminating evidence of a cover up than just the now-infamous "smoking gun" email from Ben Rhodes. Rhodes' email is slam-dunk evidence of the White House's lead role in the cover up. The blaming of the YouTube video and the talking point lies that Susan Rice was to advance on the five Sunday shows were driven by the White House.
In reviewing the 41 new documents, one sees that huge sections of these unclassified documents are blacked out. If they are unclassified, why are all the Benghazi paragraphs redacted? Fox News is reporting there are discrepancies between the emails released to Congress and the same emails released to the watchdog group, Judicial Watch.
Still, some material extremely damaging to the administration is clear. In a memo from former Deputy Spokesman at the U.S. Mission to the United Nations Payton Knopf to Susan Rice and others, Knopf provides "Guidance on Events in Libya 9/12/12. (Today's initial guidance from NSS and State)." In it, he gives a timeline ("the tick tock") of events on that day and quotes the State Department's Victoria Nuland as saying that "it was clearly a complex attack."
In the same memo, Knopf discusses Obama's "tick tock" during Benghazi. The president was made aware of the attack on the afternoon of September 11, 2012 "as he started his weekly meeting with the Secretary of Defense and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs." Ironically, only a day before the Benghazi jihad attacks, Marc Thiessen broke the story in the Washington Post that Obama had scaled back in-person daily intelligence briefings and had actually attended fewer than half of the daily intelligence briefings that had been held since he entered the White House.
But what's salient here is that according to Benghazi transcripts of defense testimony, just minutes after the American consulate in Benghazi was attacked, senior defense officials, both civilian and military, were told that it was a "terrorist attack." So why did the Obama White House promote a false narrative, and why didn't defense officials speak out about this false claim?
After being notified that it was a terrorist attack on the afternoon of September 11, 2012, Obama was "updated several times throughout the evening and the next morning." When asked when he had heard of Ambassador Steven's murder, Nuland said, "The president was notified last night that Ambassador Stevens was unaccounted for and then notified again this morning of about his tragic death."
At 11:53 PM on September 11, senior adviser Eric Pelofsky told Rice that a Libyan government official had called him to "extend his condolences" over Ambassador Stevens' death. Pelofsky said that they had not recovered the Ambassador's body, but referred to "a photo on twitter of someone carrying a body of someone who resembles Chris over their shoulder." Pelofsky had previously written that it looked as if the death of Stevens was a kidnapping gone bad. "Yes – I'm very worried. In particular, that he is either dead or this was a concerted effort to kidnap him," wrote Pelofsky at 9:06 PM Eastern the night of the attack. This, too, contradicts the State Department version of events.
I find it impossible to believe that the president of the United States was not notified immediately that night, while Pelofsky was writing about Stevens' death, that our Ambassador had been taken from our embassy possibly still alive and then murdered. But Nuland clearly says he was notified the next morning.
If he was asleep at that time, they wouldn't wake him for such momentous news? Why wasn't he calling the shots? He's the Commander-in-Chief – or had he by that time already given the stand down order? The American people need answers to such questions, and let the chips fall where they may – or bodies, in this case. Why are they covering up the point at which Obama was informed about Stevens' death?

And there is still more. In an email on September 11, 2012 at 6:17 PM, Alex McPhillips, Press Officer at the U.S. Mission to the United Nations, advised Rice thatAnsar Al-Sharia was attacking the consulate. The first reports came into the White House between 4:00 and 5:00 PM that day.
In the same email from Knopf concerning "Guidance on Events in Libya 9/12/12," he asked Nuland what State knew about the group taking credit, Ansar al-Sharia. Nuland would only say, "It's very early and I'm not going to be able to offer an assessment of this group." The point is – it was known that Ansar al-Sharia was taking credit for the attack in a widely distributed State Department email on September 12, 2012. Everybody knew that the al-Qaeda-linked group was behind the attack.
Yet the White House statement of September 12, 2012 did not call it a terror attack. Obama called it "an outrageous attack." It sounds like a Broadway review. It was an outrageous lie.
And in Hillary Clinton's press release that same evening, Clinton referred to the Muhammad video in her remarks and stated unequivocally that the "United States deplores any intentional efforts to denigrate the religious belief of others."
The frenzy was not to save our beloved countrymen. The frenzy was to save Obama's election – this while our boys were in the firefight of their lives.
There is also proof that Rice was lying when she said that security on the ground was strong and significant. In an email at 4:49 PM on September 11th– 49 minutes after the attack began, according to the State Department's own timeline – State's Dan Fogarty advised several officials, including Deputy Secretary of State William Burns, Victoria Nuland, and others that the February 17 Brigade were responding to the attack on the mission [consulate] "engaging the attackers, taking fire, and working its way to the compound to get to the villa…"
The February 17 Revolution Brigade is a jihadist militia that is tied to the Muslim Brotherhood. It was repeatedly accused of engaging in atrocities during and after the Libyan Civil War. Yes, with the world's largest, most technologically advanced, and best-armed military, the Obama administration and State Department outsourced their response to a jihadist group.
Back in September 2012, according to the Daily Beast, "the intelligence community had an intercept between a Libyan politician whose sympathies are with al Qaeda and the Libyan militia known as the February 17 Brigade – which had been charged with providing local security to the consulate. In the intercept, the Libyan politician apparently asks an officer in the brigade to have his men stand down for a pending attack – another piece of evidence implying the violence was planned in advance." In other words, it wasn't a spontaneous reaction to a video about Muhammad.
What I also want to know is why hasn't the FBI released Christopher Stevens' autopsy report? How did he die, precisely?
And where was Obama on the night of September 11, 2012?
I await more of Judicial Watch's documents in the hope that they might shed more light on what happened on that fateful day. But what we know already is enough to begin impeachment proceedings.
Source
Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, Tea Party Community & Twitter.

Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/05/be...OqwHeW1tmGx.99

Guess it still is what difference does it make...NOT!! What is treason!!

< PREVIOUS Weekly Update: Exclusive Benghazi Update MAY 09, 2014 Judicial Watch Lawsuit Success Forces Congress to Act on Benghazi Last week in the Weekly Update we reported to you that in our continuing efforts to pierce the Obama Benghazi cover-up we had finally found the smoking gun - and started an uproar. On Tuesday, April 29, we released 41 new Benghazi-related State Department documents, and the major media immediately began wall-to-wall coverage that put the Obama administration on the defensive and led to a special House Select Committee that promises to do a better job of exposing the full story of what happened before, during, and after the deadly attack on the U.S. Mission in Benghazi.

We released to the public a newly declassified email showing then-White House Deputy Strategic Communications Adviser Ben Rhodes and other Obama administration public relations officials attempting to orchestrate a campaign to portray the Benghazi consulate terrorist attack as being "rooted in an Internet video, and not a failure of policy."

They also colluded to try to convince the public of Obama's "strength and steadiness in dealing with difficult challenges." Other documents show that State Department officials initially described the incident as an "attack" and a possible kidnap attempt.

If you watched the ongoing, remarkable coverage of the Judicial Watch expose, you will recall that the Obama administration's first response was to trot out White House press secretary Jay Carney to tell reporters not to believe their own eyes. Yes, he intoned, of course there was a memo from Rhodes - but it was not about Benghazi: "This document was explicitly not about Benghazi, but about the general dynamic in the Muslim world at the time," said White House Press Secretary Jay Carney.

One blogger over at The Washington Post called the Obama response to the Judicial Watch material, "the worst excuse ever" And Fox News' Brett Bair termed it "surreal":

This was a surreal answer from Jay Carney. Now, this is a prep session with Susan Rice, getting ready for five Sunday talk shows. This is three days after 9/11 when four Americans, including the American ambassador to Libya, are killed. Everybody in the chain has said it's a terrorist attack, everyone in the chain is saying there's no protest. And yet this email, if we're to believe Jay Carney at the White House, had nothing to do with Benghazi ... Now, that really strains credulity, I mean it is really out there.

In an explosive op-ed in the Washington Times, Judge Andrew Napolitano gave Judicial Watch full credit for getting hold of critical material that the House of Representatives had been denied by a battened-down Obama White House:

The White House responded to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request filed by the fearless private watchdog group Judicial Watch and turned over an email about constructing the appropriate narrative response to the tragedy at Benghazi written by Ben Rhodes, a deputy national security adviser to President Obama.

When investigators from the House of Representatives realized that they had subpoenaed that email and not received it, they knew that there was far more to learn about the affair than met the eye.

After we broke the story, House Speaker John Boehner reacted by calling for a House vote on forming a Select Committee on Benghazi. And I issued the following statement in support of his move:

I applaud Speaker Boehner's decision today to finally move toward a Select Committee on Benghazi in response to revelations from Judicial Watch. This is long overdue. Judicial Watch is pleased that its work uncovered the "smoking gun" Rhodes email that led to this important step. Five House Committees have failed for nearly two years to get to the bottom of the Benghazi mess and have been trifled with by a stonewalling administration. We stand ready to assist Congress in any investigation of this important issue.

Now, this is a long time coming. Judicial Watch had been part of a broad coalition calling for Boehner to appoint a select committee for some time. It finally took our startling disclosure, tying the White House to Benghazi lies, to push Boehner over the edge. Congress had been denied this document, and its investigation and subpoenas had been thwarted by the Obama gang. To his credit, the Speaker of the House had had enough.

But, even with all of that, we still aren't finished. We are pleased that there is now a Select Committee but if you know Judicial Watch, you also know that we aren't going to shut down our investigations and lawsuits just because a new congressional committee has been formed.

And so our battle to expose the truth on Benghazi is only heating up.

Obama Administration Benghazi Cover Up Continues

Once again, taking the lead in investigating Benghazi, Judicial Watch released a 17-page draft Vaughn Index document obtained from the U.S. Department of State on May 1, which reveals how the Obama administration is still refusing to provide the full details of how top officials arrived at the now-discredited talking points released to the public following the deadly assault on the U.S. Mission in Benghazi, Libya. The new documents, containing more than 50 paragraphs of justifications to withhold information, were obtained in response our June 2013 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit (Judicial Watch, Inc., v. U.S. Department of State, (Civil Action No. 13-cv-00951 (EGS)) that uncovered the Benghazi White House talking points stunner.

A Vaughn Index is a document prepared by a federal agency to justify and detail the withholding of material from public disclosure. The State Department sent the Benghazi draft Vaughn Index to Judicial Watch on May 1, 2014, in accordance with a court order of October 1, 2013.

The new document seeks to justify withholding internal Obama administration exchanges about the Benghazi attack dating back to a September 11, 2013, interagency email exchange containing redactions of an opinion offered on how to respond Benghazi attack updates. Though the State Department document repeatedly describes the material as "Unclassified" or "Sensitive But Unclassified," it nonetheless justifies scores of extensive redactions and exemptions.

I'm going to go through this material in detail for you because much of the media will do its best provide cover for a White House already under attack because of Judicial Watch's revelations.

The majority of material in the draft Vaughn Index document pertains to "various drafts, and comments related to the drafts, of a proposed letter from United States Mission to the United Nations (USUN) Ambassador Susan Rice in response to various Congressional inquiries regarding the September 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. Mission in Benghazi, Libya." The internal debate about the Rice response apparently continued until October 30, 2012. The material obtained by Judicial Watch included the following descriptions related to redacted or exempted material:

• Document C05415305 is a seven-page inter-agency e-mail exchange consisting of sixteen messages between State Department and other U.S. Government officials [Rhodes, Brennan, McDonough . . .] on September 27 and September 28, 2012, with an original subject line "FOX News: US officials knew Libya attack was terrorism within 24 hours, sources confirm." Subsequent e-mail subject lines were redacted. The document was originally designated SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED. The Department withheld comments, opinions and assessments related to the formulation of a media strategy with respect to an ongoing sensitive matter under Exemption 5 pursuant to the deliberative process privilege...The information withheld under Exemption 5 is pre-decisional and deliberative in nature. The release of this information could reasonably be expected to chill the frank deliberations that occur when State Department and other U.S. Government officials are formulating public responses to address sensitive issues. The material is therefore exempt under FOIA Exemption 5, 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(5), pursuant to the deliberative process privilege."

• Document C05415752 is a one-page intra-agency e-mail exchange, consisting of three messages, that is dated September 11, 2012, and bears the subject line "UPDATE: Clashes at U.S. consulate in eastern Libyan city (Reuters)." The Department withheld an opinion offered in response to an update regarding the Benghazi attack under FOIA Exemption 5 pursuant to the deliberative process privilege.

• Document C05415756 is a four-page intra-agency e-mail exchange consisting of ten messages between State Department officials, dated September 11, 2012, with the subject line "Libya update from Beth Jones." [Jones was Assistant Secretary of State to Hillary Clinton at the time of the Benghazi attack.]

• Document C05415286 is a three-page intra-agency e-mail exchange, consisting of three messages, dated September 15, 2012, between various State Department personnel. This document ... gives a readout and comments on an internal video conference held by U.S. Government officials on September 15, which discussed the security situation in parts of the Islamic world in the wake of a controversial film on the Prophet Mohammed.

• Document C05415951 is a three-page intra-agency e-mail exchange, consisting of six messages, between State Department and other U.S. Government officials, dated September 28, 2012 and originally designated UNCLASSIFIED. The subject line of the first five messages is "Statement by the Director of Public Affairs for National Intelligence Shawn Turner on the intelligence related to the terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya."

• Document C05415969 is a three-page intra-agency e-mail exchange, consisting of six messages, dated September 29-30, 2012. The subject line of the messages is "Benghazi Draft Response Letter- v14." The Department withheld candid comments, opinions and assessments made during internal strategy discussions related to the drafting of an official response letter under FOIA Exemption 5 pursuant to the deliberative process privilege.

• Documents C05416026 is a two-page intra-agency e-mail exchange, consisting of three messages, dated September 30, 2012. The subject lines of the three messages are, beginning with the earliest in time, "Press Recommendation on Libya," "Draft Response - Vl 7," and "[Redacted] version of the response letter."

The State Department's withholdings make President Obama's transparency pledges seem like a joke. In one of his first official acts (on January 21, 2009, President Obama issued a memorandum on FOIA that includes the following:

Freedom of Information Act should be administered with a clear presumption: In the face of doubt, openness prevails. The Government should not keep information confidential merely because public officials might be embarrassed by disclosure, because errors and failures might be revealed, or because of speculative or abstract fears. Nondisclosure should never be based on an effort to protect the personal interests of Government officials at the expense of those they are supposed to serve. In responding to requests under the FOIA, executive branch agencies (agencies) should act promptly and in a spirit of cooperation, recognizing that such agencies are servants of the public.

All agencies should adopt a presumption in favor of disclosure, in order to renew their commitment to the principles embodied in FOIA, and to usher in a new era of open Government. The presumption of disclosure should be applied to all decisions involving FOIA.

This document is a guide to the Obama administration's Benghazi cover up. While Congress finally tries to get its act together, while the liberal media attacks, Judicial Watch will keep plugging away in court to get at the truth about Benghazi.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-r...nghazi-update/