It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Benghazi Bombshell: Clinton State Department Official Reveals Details of Alleged Document Review

page: 1
28
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+5 more 
posted on Sep, 15 2014 @ 01:54 PM
link   
That "forgotten about" thorn in the side for Democrats is ready to hold its first hearing about the Benghazi boondoggle.

The House Select Committee on Benghazi has some interesting and potentially damning information that seems was never heard of before.

Somebody is ready to testify about secret meetings in basements that allegedly sifted through documents before they were turned over to the Accountability Review Board !!

Shocking how they would do that to preserve the illusions that were cast out to the public.

This Committee will get to the bottom of the pit eventually.



As the House Select Committee on Benghazi prepares for its first hearing this week, a former State Department diplomat is coming forward with a startling allegation: Hillary Clinton confidants were part of an operation to “separate” damaging documents before they were turned over to the Accountability Review Board investigating security lapses surrounding the Sept. 11, 2012, terrorist attacks on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya.

Hillary Clinton’s chief of staff allegedly present at after-hours document review.

According to former Deputy Assistant Secretary Raymond Maxwell, the after-hours session took place over a weekend in a basement operations-type center at State Department headquarters in Washington, D.C. This is the first time Maxwell has publicly come forward with the story.




Benghazi Bombshell: Clinton State Department Official Reveals Details of Alleged Document Review





posted on Sep, 15 2014 @ 02:04 PM
link   
DUDE...That was like two years ago; What difference, at this point, does it make?!


+2 more 
posted on Sep, 15 2014 @ 02:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: IAMTAT
DUDE...That was like two years ago; What difference, at this point, does it make?!


And in 2016, Hillary will say this was 4 years ago.

But anybody who ends up in jail will think it's more like an eternity !!




posted on Sep, 15 2014 @ 02:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: IAMTAT
DUDE...That was like two years ago; What difference, at this point, does it make?!


Um, people died. It makes a difference to them. It makes a difference to their families. And it makes a difference to people like me.



posted on Sep, 15 2014 @ 02:20 PM
link   
I have to give this Maxwell fella a pat on the back for coming forward with the truth!
Obama is toast...but this is a smoking gun that is aimed directly back at Clinton; the beginning of the end for her candidacy.
More will soon step forward, IMO.
Kudos to Atkinson for her reporting, as well.



posted on Sep, 15 2014 @ 02:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ameilia

originally posted by: IAMTAT
DUDE...That was like two years ago; What difference, at this point, does it make?!


Um, people died. It makes a difference to them. It makes a difference to their families. And it makes a difference to people like me.

Sorry, I should've pointed out that this was sarcasm and I was quoting Hillary and high-ranking Obama officers.



posted on Sep, 15 2014 @ 02:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: IAMTAT
DUDE...That was like two years ago; What difference, at this point, does it make?!


It makes an awful lot of difference:

1) Potentially shows the lack of judgement of Clinton while she was Secretary of State
2) Potentially shows her lack of character in ordering a cover up of damaging information, just to save herself
3) Is probably a criminal act to destroy official documents, and to obstruct an investigation

She is going to run for President, and so this is very relvent.



posted on Sep, 15 2014 @ 02:27 PM
link   
But criminals don't send criminals to jail . :>) a reply to: xuenchen



posted on Sep, 15 2014 @ 02:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
But criminals don't send criminals to jail . :>) a reply to: xuenchen



Except when criminals are exposed by hidden criminals with different agendas.

Then it's up for grabs.




posted on Sep, 15 2014 @ 02:43 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

It's really not a thorn in the democrats side because this is not going to deter one democrat voter to vote republican...it's that simple...



posted on Sep, 15 2014 @ 02:46 PM
link   
a reply to: IAMTAT

Because Bush lied and people died...............Oh wait, forgot. It only works for Dems going against Reps.



posted on Sep, 15 2014 @ 02:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: chrismarco
a reply to: xuenchen

It's really not a thorn in the democrats side because this is not going to deter one democrat voter to vote republican...it's that simple...



It's not about the voter public.

It's about the perceptions cast by the trembling politicians.




posted on Sep, 15 2014 @ 03:18 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Personally, I would just like to see it admitted that the whole thing was misrepresented and shoved under the carpet because of the presidential election.

It's pretty obvious what the whole motive was. It is also pretty obvious that Hillary enabled the "misrepresentation".

Now it isn't about saving Obama's election, it is about saving hers.



posted on Sep, 15 2014 @ 03:46 PM
link   
At this point it doesn't make any difference, other than woopdeedoodahday, it happened under Obama and H.Clinton's watch, and there's a lot of smoke surrounding what actually happened.

January 22, 2002 - U.S. consulate at Kolkata. 5 killed.
June 14, 2002 - U.S. consulate at Karachi. 12 killed.
February 28, 2003 - U.S. embassy at Islamabad. 2 killed.
June 30, 2004 - U.S. embassy at Tashkent. 2 killed.
December 6, 2004 - U.S. compound in Saudi Arabia. 9 killed.
March 2, 2006 - U.S. consulate in Karachi. 2 killed.
September 12, 2006 - U.S. embassy in Syria. 4 killed.
March 18, 2008 - U.S. embassy in Yemen. 2 killed.
July 9, 2008 - U.S. consulate in Instanbul. 6 killed.
September 17, 2008 - U.S. embassy in Yemen. 16 killed.
Total deaths - 60
Outrages - 0.
That's under Bush..

Now I'm not trying to bring up past news, but not a single peep was heard about these deaths. But four people die under Obama and H.Clintons watch and everyone throws a fit? Added to that, if republicans were so worried about security, why did they vote to cut money to keep embassies secure? Why are they continuing to try to cut the funds? You'd think that they would rather keep funding going and make sure that it goes to the security of these places, so another Benghazi doesn't happen.

At this point, I almost wonder if this is like... Scandal envy. People want Obama to look bad. The majority of people would say that it's because he's black. And that could partially be why. But it also has to do with his lack of experience, the way he's worded things (like the time he made the mistake in calling the military his military), and some things that he supports (gay marriage, minimum wage increase, abortions, universal healthcare, etc.)
Republicans hate Obama. They see him as corrupt. But he's gone through his terms thus far without scandal. They tried Fast and Furious, and that was debunked. They tried the whole deal with Solyndra, which wasn't criminal either.
Nixon had Watergate, Reagan had Iran-Contra, Clinton had Monica, Bush had (or will have 9/11), and Obama is pretty much tidy.

They'll continue to go after Benghazi though, because it's what's handy and it potentially gets rid of Hillary, too. People don't want Hillary to win an election for President possibly because of the same reason people dislike Obama. They are almost the same in the way they speak, and what they support. The only difference is that Hillary has more experience than Obama does.

I thought at one time that Hillary would be a good President, but something about her bothers me. She seems almost power hungry, and anyone that hungers for power probably shouldn't have it. It's not that I don't like Hillary's viewpoints either, because in some ways, I really do agree with her. I'm just sure that there will probably be better candidates.

I'll tell you though, even if it turns out that Hillary is tidy in this mess and did nothing wrong, people will still try to dirty her image. It's politics. It happens. And if she does win the election for President... You think people have dirtied Obama's name. You just wait to hear what people will have to say about Hillary.



posted on Sep, 15 2014 @ 03:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Lyxdeslic

All those other incidents ...

Was there any cover-up attempts?

Was there any attempts to shift blame to private citizens?

I can't remember.




posted on Sep, 15 2014 @ 03:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Lyxdeslic

All those other incidents ...

Was there any cover-up attempts?

Was there any attempts to shift blame to private citizens?

I can't remember.





To be honest with you, I don't know. I was just making the point that not a single person opened their mouth about those incidents. Yet as soon as Benghazi was attacked, it turned into a conspiracy. Everyone was running their mouths. Why did no one do this for Precious Bush?



posted on Sep, 15 2014 @ 04:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Lyxdeslic


To be honest with you, I don't know. I was just making the point that not a single person opened their mouth about those incidents. Yet as soon as Benghazi was attacked, it turned into a conspiracy. Everyone was running their mouths. Why did no one do this for Precious Bush?


The ones who opened their big fat traps first was the White House.

Too many lies came spitting out all over the place.

That may not have happened after the prior incidents.

And their explanations and deflections were 100% geared towards the 2012 election.

Many statements have been proven to be untrue and Red Herrings already.

Bush?






posted on Sep, 15 2014 @ 04:07 PM
link   
Is this the 10th attempt to make something stick?

Republicans spent $30 million investigating Clinton.

$8 million on 9/11.

And how much on Benghazi?



posted on Sep, 15 2014 @ 04:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Lyxdeslic


To be honest with you, I don't know. I was just making the point that not a single person opened their mouth about those incidents. Yet as soon as Benghazi was attacked, it turned into a conspiracy. Everyone was running their mouths. Why did no one do this for Precious Bush?


The ones who opened their big fat traps first was the White House.

Too many lies came spitting out all over the place.

That may not have happened after the prior incidents.

And their explanations and deflections were 100% geared towards the 2012 election.

Many statements have been proven to be untrue and Red Herrings already.

Bush?





So if the explanations and deflections were 100% geared towards the 2012 elections, how do we know that what's being said now isn't meant to changed our thoughts when it comes to the next elections? How do we know that people aren't lying about Hillary in order to limit the votes that she gets, so maybe someone else can step out of the shadows and win the election over her? Just another reason to say "We can't trust the government."



posted on Sep, 15 2014 @ 04:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Lyxdeslic

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Lyxdeslic


To be honest with you, I don't know. I was just making the point that not a single person opened their mouth about those incidents. Yet as soon as Benghazi was attacked, it turned into a conspiracy. Everyone was running their mouths. Why did no one do this for Precious Bush?


The ones who opened their big fat traps first was the White House.

Too many lies came spitting out all over the place.

That may not have happened after the prior incidents.

And their explanations and deflections were 100% geared towards the 2012 election.

Many statements have been proven to be untrue and Red Herrings already.

Bush?





So if the explanations and deflections were 100% geared towards the 2012 elections, how do we know that what's being said now isn't meant to changed our thoughts when it comes to the next elections? How do we know that people aren't lying about Hillary in order to limit the votes that she gets, so maybe someone else can step out of the shadows and win the election over her? Just another reason to say "We can't trust the government."


We don't.

It could be.

Never trust any government.




new topics

top topics



 
28
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join