Thread: BENGHAZI – BIGGEST COVER-UP SCANDAL IN U.S. HISTORY? – BENGHAZI CIA GUN-RUNNING

Congressman: CIA Employee Who Refused to Sign Non-Disclosure on Benghazi Suspended

Rep. Wolf: Employee forced to hire legal counsel

U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya / AP

BY: Adam Kredo
September 17, 2013 5:00 am

A CIA employee who refused to sign a non-disclosure agreement barring him from discussing the Sept. 11, 2012 terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya, has been suspended as a result and forced to hire legal counsel, according to a top House lawmaker.
Rep. Frank Wolf (R., Va.) revealed at an event on Monday that his office was anonymously informed about the CIA employee, who is purportedly facing an internal backlash after refusing to sign a legal document barring him from publicly or privately discussing events surrounding the Benghazi attack.
The revelation comes about a month after several media outlets reported that CIA employees with knowledge of the terror attack had been forced to sign non-disclosure agreements (NDA) and submit to regular polygraph tests.
“The reports on the NDA are accurate. We’re getting people who call,” Wolf said Monday during an event marking the launch of the Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi, a panel of former military and intelligence officials who are investigating unanswered questions surrounding the Benghazi incident.
Wolf’s office first received the anonymous call earlier in the summer, soon after CNN and Fox News reported on the NDAs and polygraph tests.
The caller told Wolf’s staff that an unnamed CIA employee has been suspended after refusing to sign a Benghazi-related NDA.
“My office received a call from a man saying that he knew a CIA employee who has retained legal counsel because he has refused to sign an additional NDA regarding the Sept. 11, 2012, events in Benghazi,” Wolf said in Sept. 9 remarks at a panel discussion hosted by Judicial Watch.
“I called the law firm and spoke with CIA employee’s attorney who confirmed that her client is having an issue with the agency and the firm is trying to address it,” Wolf said. “Based on my past experiences with the CIA, which is headquartered in my congressional district, I am not at all confident that these efforts will be successful.”
The NDA agreements are meant to instill fear in employees and stop them from speaking “to the media or Congress,” Wolf said on Monday.
The CIA declined to comment directly on Wolf’s charges, but forwarded theWashington Free Beacon a letter sent to Congress from CIA Director John Brennan in which he denies charges that the agency has forced employees to sign NDAs and submit to polygraph tests.
“I want to assure you that I will not tolerate any effort to prevent our intelligence oversight committee from doing their jobs,” Brennan hand wrote at the bottom of the letter.
The CIA reiterated its denial in a Tuesday call to a Free Beacon reporter, calling Wolf’s allegations “categorically false.”
Monday’s Benghazi discussion came on the same day that House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R., Calif.) released a report detailing multiple shortcomings in the State Department’s internal investigation into failures related to the Benghazi attack.
Issa says that the State Department “obstructed” congressional investigators, was “not comprehensive” in nature, “did not conduct thorough interviews,” and that more senior officials were not held to account.
“The ARB was not fully independent,” Issa said in a statement. “The panel did not exhaustively examine failures and it has led to an unacceptable lack of accountability.”
“While Ambassador [Thomas] Pickering and Admiral [Michael] Mullen have honorably served their country, the families of victims and the American people continue to wait for more conclusive answers about how our government left our own personnel so vulnerable and alone the night of the attack,” Issa said.
The newly formed Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi has similar goals as congressional investigators but is not confined by rules governing the legislative body, speakers at the event said.
Retired Air Force Col. Richard Brauer, cofounder of the group Special Operations Speaks, said the committee would aim to find out why U.S. military assets were ordered to “stand down” during the Benghazi attack.
“We’re tired of the lies and the cover-up that continues to this day,” Brauer said. “Who gave the order” to stand down, “to remain in place in Tripoli and the other locations and do nothing. When was this order given and why?”
“Forces were available on that very night, likely champing at the bit, but they were told to stand down,” he said. “These are words that will live in infamy.”
This entry was posted in National Security and tagged Benghazi attack. Bookmark the permalink.

http://freebeacon.com/cia-employee-w...azi-suspended/

Another Benghazi bombshell

Posted on September 16, 2013

The incompetence of liberals is totally unacceptable.

Check it out: Peter Doocy reports from Washington




Continue Reading on video.foxnews.com ...

Read more at http://conservativebyte.com/2013/09/...iU1hIslGa96.99

Congress: Hillary’s Benghazi Investigation Let Top Officials Escape Blame

by Josh Rogin, The Daily Beast | published on September 16, 2013


The State Department’s investigation into the Sept. 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi was not independent and failed to hold senior State Department officials accountable for the failures that led to the death of four Americans, according to a new investigative report compiled by the House Oversight Committee.



The Administrative Review Board, chosen by then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, unfairly placed the blame for the terrorist attack on four mid-level officials while ignoring the role of very senior officials in Clinton’s State Department for decisions about security in Benghazi, according to the new report led by Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA). Also, the structure of the ARB and the culture in Clinton’s State Department raised questions about the independence and integrity of the review, according to Issa’s committee.
“The ARB blamed systemic failures and leadership and management deficiencies within two bureaus, but downplayed the importance of decisions made at senior levels of the Department. Witnesses questioned how much these decisions influenced the weaknesses that led to the inadequate security posture in Benghazi,� the report stated. “The ARB’s decision to cite certain officials as accountable for what happened in Benghazi appears to have been based on factors that had little or no connection to the security posture at U.S. diplomatic facilities in Libya.�



Read the full article: http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...ape-blame.html

Read more at 1776 Coalition: http://www.1776coalition.com/feature...#ixzz2fFljWvfp





The Obama administration announced recently that it would start overtly arming the Syrian “rebels.” Overtly, as opposed to covertly. I have a hard time believing that they’re just now starting to arm the rebellion. They’ve been doing this for a long time under the radar. It’s just that, now, they’re making it public. Apparently, there had been a delay in getting the arms to the rebel groups in Syria, but it’s being reported now that those shipments are finally coming in. The Washington Post reported last week: “The CIA has begun delivering weapons to rebels in Syria, ending months of delay in lethal aid that had been promised by the Obama administration, according to U.S. officials and Syrian figures. The shipments began streaming into the country over the past two weeks, along with separate deliveries by the State Department of vehicles and other gear — a flow of material that marks a major escalation of the U.S. role in Syria’s civil war. The arms shipments, which are limited to light weapons and other munitions that can be tracked, began arriving in Syria at a moment of heightened tensions over threats by President Obama to order missile strikes to punish the regime of Bashar al-Assad for his alleged use of chemical weapons in a deadly attack near Damascus last month.” When they say “light weapons,” they’re not talking about slingshots: “The CIA has been delivering light machine guns and other small arms to Syrian rebels for several weeks, following President Barack Obama's decision to arm the rebels. The agency has also arranged for the Syrian opposition to receive anti-tank weaponry like rocket-propelled grenades through a third party, presumably one of the Gulf countries that has been arming the rebels, a senior U.S. intelligence official and two former intelligence officials said Thursday. They spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the classified program publicly.” They call them “light weapons” when they’re talking about arming terrorists. If Americans had these so-called “light weapons,” they’d go to jail. They’re illegal. (Well, essentially illegal.) Can you imagine if Obama allowed only semi-automatic rifles with magazines with no more than a 10-round capacity to be sent to the rebels? They’d laugh. They want real weapons. Like real assault weapons. Machine guns. Anti-tank weapons such as RPGs. And I’m sure that’s not all. The dark irony here is that U.S. taxpayers are working and paying taxes to a government that is slowly but surely disarming Americans through regulations in the name of getting guns off the streets and out of the “wrong hands.” It’s about “public safety and security.” And the children. All the while, this tax money is being spent on arming terrorists overseas with machine guns and RPGs. Makes perfect sense.
Read more at http://politicaloutcast.com/2013/09/...OMd1xSVGCkR.99

Judicial Watch Panel: 'Benghazi: Unanswered Questions' 9-9-2013




Published on Sep 10, 2013
Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton moderates a Benghazi panel discussion with Congressman Frank Wolf (VA -- 10) and Judicial Watch Director of Investigations and Research Christopher Farrell. The panel focuses on the American public's unanswered questions regarding the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11, 2012 despite a year of investigations by five separate House committees. Rep. Frank Wolf also details his efforts calling for a bipartisan House Select Committee to fully investigate the terrorist attack.

• Category
  
  News & Politics
• License
  
  Standard YouTube License

Never forget, remember we mustcontinue to keep their feet to the fire!!!!

http://www.alipac.us/f9/benghazi-sec...-guard-288651/

http://www.alipac.us/f9/case-impeach...videos-289495/

Former Ambassador: Benghazi “Stand Down” Order Came from Obama

Ann Wagner, a former US ambassador and current congresswoman from Missouri, was interviewed about what the protocol would be for a “stand down” order in the event of a consulate being under attack, and she answered what many have suspected already: that’s an order that would come from Obama himself.

This is one of the reasons that the Obama administration has essentially refused to provide details about where Obama was at or what he was doing during the attack. This is because we know exactly what he was doing — ignoring the cries for help for political reasons.

Being wrong about policy is one thing. But ignoring the screams of those who work for you because you’d rather them die than accept that your foreign policy is creating more terrorists is a level of treason rare, even for the most despotic tyrants.

http://www.capitalisminstitute.org/s...ref_map=%5B%5D

ADMINISTRATION SHUTS DOWN ACCESS TO BENGHAZI SURVIVORS



By: John Hayward
10/31/2013 09:48 AM

It looks like the Obama Administration has had its fill of tough questions about the Benghazi debacle, as it throws up yet another stonewall against investigators, using a pretext so flimsy that it would be funny under less bloody circumstances: we can’t have the survivors giving testimony because that might screw up a future criminal case against the al-Qaeda terrorists President Obama used to claim had nothing to do with the attack, and has been less than eager to track down.
Catherine Herridge of Fox News reports:

The Justice and State departments are now citing a year-old FBI investigation and a future criminal prosecution to block access to survivors of last year’s Benghazi terror attack.
In an Oct. 28 letter to Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.,the State Department’s Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs, Julia Frifield, refers to “significant risks” and “serious concerns about having the survivors of the attack submit to additional interviews.”
Graham has been asking since last year for the FBI’s transcripts of interviews with State Department and CIA survivors who were evacuated to Germany after the Sep.11 attack on the U.S. consulate.
He and other Republicans believe the transcripts will show the survivors told the FBI it was a terrorist attack and made no mention of a video or anti-U.S. demonstration at the consulate.

“Year-old FBI investigation?” That’s the one where the FBI agents cooled their heels in Tripoli for weeks, while the “crime scene” got picked apart, including the odd intriguing discovery by reporters who nosed around in the ruins and found items such as Ambassador Chris Stevens’ diary.
The pursuit of Benghazi suspects hasn’t been terribly vigorous. The Fox report notes that John Kerry’s State Department isn’t even offering a reward for information leading to the capture of the Benghazi perpetrators, an offer routinely made for less serious offenses.
This is largely due to the fact that the Benghazi area is unsafe for American investigators – a fact the Administration doesn’t like to discuss, since Libya was supposed to be an Obama foreign policy success. Many suspect that’s a big part of the reason security was so lax on 9/11/12 when the attacks occurred, and there weren’t any rescue forces on standby in case Ambassador Stevens got in trouble. Team Obama didn’t want to do anything that might prompt questions about the dangerous conditions in Libya during his re-election campaign. Beefing up security, and putting strike teams on standby, to handle trouble on the 9/11 anniversary might have drawn too much attention from the President’s domestic political opponents. Who knows, the media might even have covered it.
USA Today described the dangerous terrain of Benghazi in an October 8 report on the capture of al-Qaeda suspect Nazih Abdul-Hamed al-Ruqai, better known by his nom de scumbag Anas al-Libi, in Tripoli:

The capture by U.S. special forces of an al-Qaeda leader in the Libyan capital of Tripoli has some wondering why none of the Benghazi terrorists have been grabbed.
Republican congressman Jason Chaffetz of Utah said Monday he has seen little sign the Obama administration is chasing down the leaders behind the killing of a U.S. ambassador and three other Americans a little over year ago.
But some analysts say there are differences between the two targets.
Juan Zarate, a former senior White House anti-terrorism official under former-President George W. Bush, says Tripoli is a relatively safe city where the government is more friendly toward the United States.
Benghazi, east of Tripoli, is teeming with radical militias that have launched multiple attacks on government and foreign targets, he said.
“Benghazi is less secure,” Zarate said.

The Libyan government was not happy about the capture of al-Libi, describing it as “the kidnap of one of the Libyan citizens.” One is inclined to respond with a hearty “boo freakin’ hoo,” but then again, it’s not good that the government Obama installed in Libya is (a) yelling at us for kidnapping one of their citizens and (b) not doing much in the way of “kidnapping” terror suspects itself. CNN reports that U.S. special ops teams were ready to bag a key suspect in the Benghazi attack, Ahmed Abu Khattalah, around the same time al-Libi was taken, but this mission was considered far more dangerous – because, once again, Benghazi is a terrorist-infested, militia-controlled hell hole – and was scrubbed hours before it would have launched. There were fears of political fallout for the Libyan government, and concerns that the capture of al-Libi would have the Benghazi targets on high alert.
Khattalah, incidentally, is the guy who sat down for an interview with CNN at a Benghazi coffee shop last summer, boasting that he was not in hiding, and didn’t think the FBI was hunting for him. He said no one from either the Libyan or American governments had ever even tried to contact him.
It’s possible al-Libi could get roped into a Benghazi prosecution as an organizer of the forces behind the attack, which raises yet another disturbing question about the Administration’s actions on 9/11/12, because as the recent “60 Minutes” report on the attack made clear, they knew this guy was active in Libya setting up terror cells. Every new tidbit of information that slips past the Obama stonewall makes it look more outrageous, and downright weird, that anyone thought it would be a good idea to send the Ambassador into this hornet’s nest with nothing but an unarmed security detail, backed up by a half-assed local militia that vanished in a cloud of chicken feathers the minute bullets started flying, after al-Qaeda hit the British and Red Cross, and promised the American consulate would be next. The Ambassador reported seeing the black flag of al-Qaeda flying over government buildings. It is increasingly difficult to swallow the refusal to provide him with more protection, or even a contingency plan, as mere negligence.
Since there isn’t anyone left in America who believes the story Obama and Hillary Clinton peddled about a “spontaneous video protest,” and it’s pretty well established they all knew that wasn’t true from Minute One, there probably isn’t much more political damage to be inflicted by securing testimony from more people on the ground who will confirm what many others, including Deputy Ambassador Greg Hicks, have already made clear: nobody on the ground ever thought it was a protest against a YouTube video that spiraled out of control.
Perhaps the testimony Republicans really want – and Democrats fear – would have more to do with the orders given before and during the attack. They might also learn something interesting about why Ambassador Stevens was in harm’s way that fateful night. ”Does it bother you whether or not you know why Chris Stevens was in Benghazi?” Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) goaded the media. ”Do you know why we were the last flag flying in Benghazi after the British had left and the Red Cross had been bombed? Do you know why requests for additional security were denied?”
It was hard to hear anything else over the deafening roar of ObamaCare collapsing, but yesterday the Washington Times noted that two elite U.S. special forces commandos were awarded well-deserved commendations for bravery for fighting in Benghazi… which is awkward for the Administration, because they’ve been loudly insisting that no one could possibly have reached the scene of the attack in time to help, so there was no point in giving orders to effect a rescue.

But sources directly familiar with the attack tell The Washington Times that a unit of eight special operators — mostly Delta Force and Green Beret members — were in Tripoli the night of the attack, on a counterterrorism mission that involved capturing weapons and wanted terrorists from the streets and helping train Libyan forces.
When word of the Benghazi attack surfaced, two members of that military unit volunteered to be dispatched along with five private security contractors on a hastily arranged flight from Tripoli to rescue Americans in danger, the sources said, speaking only on the condition of anonymity because the special operations forces’ existence inside Libya was secret.
The two special operations forces arrived in time to engage in the final, ferocious firefight between the terrorists and Americans holed up in the CIA annex near the ill-fated diplomatic mission in Benghazi, the sources added.

You can understand why congressional Democrats wouldn’t want any Benghazi survivors giving testimony about such things.
The excuses for keeping the survivors under wraps are ridiculous, and would serve as a blistering indictment of Administration anti-terrorism policy if taken seriously. From the Fox report:

The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and its Republican Chairman, Darell Issa, recently interviewed – against the Justice Department’s wishes — two State Department security agents who have firsthand knowledge of the attack, leading one Democratic lawmaker to predict the move would create inconsistencies and complicate a trial.
“As a prosecutor, you never want your witnesses to be interviewed by multiple sources. It just lends itself to the possibility of unintentional conflicts within their statements,” Rep.Adam Schiff, D-Calif., a member of the House Intelligence Committee, told Fox News.
“It concerns me that that was not a higher priority for the chairman, to make sure that we could bring these people to justice, than to carry on this political exercise.”

What people? Who? What suspects are we poised to take down? This wasn’t a crime, it was a military assault. There were hundreds of people involved, working as illegal combatants under the command of al-Qaeda. If it’s really important to straitjacket ourselves to preserve some fragile future criminal case – which would, conveniently, probably run past the end of Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign – then that’s a decisive argument against all this criminal court stuff.


http://www.humanevents.com/2013/10/3...azi-survivors/