Hillary’s Video Claim Officially Proven to Be Deliberate Lie

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

Prove that anyone lied about the video.

Prove that any comments made by any administration official about Benghazi helped re-elect Mr. Obama.

Stop talking about what you think I believe; you're wrong and it's off-topic (and silly.)

There ar e phone call transcripts that prove she told the egyptians a diffrent story on the cause. if thats not good enough nothing is.

NM

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

Prove that anyone lied about the video.

Prove that any comments made by any administration official about Benghazi helped re-elect Mr. Obama.

Stop talking about what you think I believe; you're wrong and it's off-topic (and silly.)

Nope. Hillary Clinton, while telling the people of the USA and the parents of the dead Americans that this was all because of a video, TESTIFIED that she also told her family and others that it was a terrorist attack by an al-qaeda related group.

Tada!

PS: Oops...you asked for proof. Here is a good place to start. You will find many examples of "proof" HERE

Jim Jordan Asks Hillary

This scandal is about as obvious as it gets in politics. Anyone who can watch the above clip and still defend Hillary should do the country a favor and stop voting. Such people are far too easily duped, and will fall for anything a smiling politician says.

That, or they are viewing their own party through rose colored glasses with attached blinders.

a reply to: Gryphon66

So, with that said I would like to address your comment that I look "silly" stating these facts. While you seem to be an intelligent person, you spout out falsehoods (also called lies) that I'm sure you know are incorrect. Mostly because if you pay attention to ANY news from ANY side, your words tend to elude the truth. Now...while I can't say this as a fact, I have come to a conclusion that fits this situation. I believe you are taking the typical liberal position (Pelosi, Clinton, Obama, Reid, etc.) of lie...continue to lie...and hope some people don't look into the truthfulness of your words in hopes to convince some people of the lie.

I'm going to have to go with that logic as I can not think of anything else that fits as well. And IF I am correct...you do the people of America a grave injustice.

I am truly impressed by how the Clinton Defenders have managed to push the thread back into "She didn't lie about a video", and side-step the real scandal and illegality of what the Administration was doing in Libya in the first place. And her actions personally of course.

DP

a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

You want to talk about lies, but you can't point to any.

You also want to talk about me, and not the facts.

Why?

Here's how you actually prove something: Quote me and then show that I'm lying.

Are you KIDDING with your link? Speaking of lies, Gowdy stated two days ago that nothing new was discovered in Clinton's testimony, and now he wants to claim she "wasn't accurate" about the damn email server (that still lacks ANY proof of wrongdoing despite more millions being spent to investigate nothing?)

I don't care a whit about Clinton. I care about the truth. Show some evidence, and stop trying to make this about what you think of me.

originally posted by: CrawlingChaos
I am truly impressed by how the Clinton Defenders have managed to push the thread back into "She didn't lie about a video", and side-step the real scandal and illegality of what the Administration was doing in Libya in the first place. And her actions personally of course.

Why don't you give us some actual evidence for your claim?

That'd be a starting place.

The real scandal here, is the Secretary of State ignored the law and Ok'ed weapon sales on the down-low to known and listed terrorists and subsequent organizations.

"WASHINGTON — The Obama administration secretly gave its blessing to arms shipments to Libyan rebels from Qatar last year, but American officials later grew alarmed as evidence grew that Qatar was turning some of the weapons over to Islamic militants"

-Newyork Times Dec. 5'th 2012

"The State Department initially approved a weapons shipment from a California company to Libyans seeking to oust Moammar Gadhafi in 2011 even though a United Nations arms ban was in place, according to memos recovered from the burned-out compound in Benghazi.

"The documents, obtained by The Washington Times, show U.S. diplomats at the Benghazi compound were keeping track of several potential U.S.-sanctioned shipments to allies, one or more of which were destined for the Transitional National Council, the Libyan movement that was seeking to oust Gadhafi and form a new government."

-Washington Times Oct. 20'th 2015

The real scandal, is The Secretary of Stated facilitating the attack of a sovereign government, while her contacts chase down business leads and opprotunities. War for profit....

" According to the Times, Blumenthal was, at the same time, advising associates who were trying to win business from the transitional Libyan government Clinton had helped install by pushing for a coalition war to oust Qaddafi..... But the emails released by State do show that Blumenthal, who had no connection to the US government, acted as an unofficial adviser to Clinton on Libya — and that she sent her own aides to chase down his leads, no matter how implausible. "

-Vox & NewYork Times

"The real scandal here, is the State department shipping weapons and terrorists into Syria."

"The Obama administration has decided to launch a covert operation to send heavy weapons to Syrian rebels,"
- Christina Lamb of The Sunday Times of London reports.

"Last month The Wall Street Journal reported that the State Department presence in Benghazi "provided diplomatic cover" for the now-exposed CIA annex. It follows that the "weapons transfer" that Stevens negotiated may have involved sending heavy weapons recovered by the CIA to the revolutionaries in Syria."

-Bussiness Insider , Also reports in NewYork Times

The real scandal is terrorist hell hole that Libya is now, because of her Clinton-Foundation & future Business greed. Literally capitalizing on the suffering and instability SHE fomented, to make a buck. Civillians died in those SORTIES, so she and others could make money. Wicked, horrific terrorists, terrorizing civilian populations so she could set up money making opprotunities.

"On Sept. 6 a Libyan ship carrying 400 tons of weapons for Syrian rebels docked in southern Turkey. The ship's captain was "a Libyan from Benghazi" who worked for the new Libyan government. The man who organized that shipment, Tripoli Military Council head Abdelhakim Belhadj, worked directly with Stevens during the Libyan revolution."

-Fox news

"Much of the Libya intelligence that Mr. Blumenthal passed on to Mrs. Clinton appears to have come from a group of business associates he was advising as they sought to win contracts from the Libyan transitional government. The venture, which was ultimately unsuccessful, involved other Clinton friends, a private military contractor and one former C.I.A. spy seeking to get in on the ground floor of the new Libyan economy."

-New York Times may 18'th, 2015

a reply to: CrawlingChaos

Quotes without links are basically meaningless. I wonder what you didn't want us to see in your citations?

Aside from that, with this kind of evidence so readily available on the internet for you to Google, one seriously wonders why Mr. Gowdy et. al. haven't brought actual criminal charges against Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Obama, and anyone else they don't agree with politically.

I mean, if you can find this in a few minutes, why can't the Republicans find anything illegal in 3+ years of trying?

That was your assertion, right? That this shotgun set of quotes points to something illegal on the part of the Obama Administration?

Right?

LOL your response is I'm hiding something. If you're that certain, I list the publications & or reporters for you to browse yourself. Not hard stuff to look up. Sorry I didn't link 5 years of reporting to a single post....

Also thank you for calling me a liar, adds so much to the discussion. That's what you've lowered yourself to in an adult conversation ? Slandering someone, and deflecting ?

This is why we can't have nice things, Gryphon.

Aside from the fact that the OP has been proven to be basically hoaxed repeatedly here, let's get to the root of this issue.

On September 11, 2012, The AP and other news sources initially reported that the events in Benghazi were related to violent reactions on the part of Muslims across the Middle East to the video "Innocence of Muslims."

Here is what Clinton said in her first official announcement:

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.

Here is what Clinton said in the much-ballyhooed email to Chelsea:

Two of our officers were killed in Benghazi by an al Qaeda-like group: The Ambassador, whom I handpicked and a young communications officer on temporary duty w a wife and two young children. Very hard day and I fear more of the same tomorrow.

Here's what she said the next day (after Mr. Obama had referred to what happened as "an act of terror" in the Rose Garden):

All the Americans we lost in yesterday’s attacks made the ultimate sacrifice. We condemn this vicious and violent attack that took their lives, which they had committed to helping the Libyan people reach for a better future.

(Obama also referred to the attacks as "an act of terror" later on the night of September 12th at a speech.)

Etc. etc. etc.

Now. Those with an agenda against the Obama Administration, the President, and Mrs. Clinton see this as a horrendous set of lies. I and others see this as a situation in flux. I see Clinton and Obama being careful in public to make comments before the facts were fully known. However, there was no attempt to mislead the American people, as both referred to the events as violent acts of terror.

Now, here's the thing ... I'll say the same thing that Mrs. Clinton has said: full disclosure or not ... what difference does it make?

Nah, let's quote exactly what she said (as well as what Rep Johnson said for context):

Johnson: No, again, we were misled that there were supposedly protests and that something sprang out of that -- an assault sprang out of that -- and that was easily ascertained that that was not the fact, and the American people could have known that within days and they didn’t know that.

Clinton: With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided that they’d they go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator. Now, honestly, I will do my best to answer your questions about this, but the fact is that people were trying in real time to get to the best information. The IC has a process, I understand, going with the other committees to explain how these talking points came out. But you know, to be clear, it is, from my perspective, less important today looking backwards as to why these militants decided they did it than to find them and bring them to justice, and then maybe we’ll figure out what was going on in the meantime.

Now, like Mrs. Clinton or not, that's what she said, and what she said about what she said.

Source: Many, but mostly: Factcheck.org: Benghazi Timeline and Hillary Clinton's "What Difference Does it Make" Quote in Context

a reply to: CrawlingChaos

LOL ... so it's out of line to ask for links to quotes now? Indeed, that's part of the ATS Terms and Conditions. I'm even more curious what was left out now that you're making such a big deal about it.

Quote me calling you a liar. Quote it. Use the quote function.

Now that we're done with your attempts to sidestep and make this about me ... what ILLEGAL act did any of your mass of quotes show evidence for?

You accused the United States, the President and the Secretary of State of illegal acts. I'd like to know what those acts are.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: CrawlingChaos

LOL ... so it's out of line to ask for links to quotes now? Indeed, that's part of the ATS Terms and Conditions. I'm even more curious what was left out now that you're making such a big deal about it.

Those were quotes, nothing was left out. Again the scandal isn't whether She lied or not. The scandal is the U.S. Government supporting terrorists to affect regime change. And it's not just Clinton who was in on it. Clinton just happen to leave a trail of personal gain, for having been involved.

Quote me calling you a liar. Quote it. Use the quote function.

"I'm even more curious what was left out now that you're making such a big deal about it. "

"I wonder what you didn't want us to see in your citations? "

"Or are the Republicans in on the vast conspiracy as well? "

The implications, asserted by your statements, is that I'm lying.

Now that we're done with your attempts to sidestep and make this about me

At what point did I say you were involved in arming of terrorists for personal gain ?

You accused the United States, the President and the Secretary of State of illegal acts. I'd like to know what those acts are.

Well, I implicated a few more people than that back on page 4, or maybe 5. But in short : Illegally supporting terrorists to affect regime change. While some select individuals also found time to insert business gains and leads for profit. Forgive me for making presumptions, but I would presume you find the Iraq war an illegal war ? What would that make this cluster F%%K of Libya then ?

It's probably better if you stick to calling me dishonest and that the Benhgazi situation is about whether Clinton lied or not. No need to discuss anything further than that, it hurts your narrative.

You know... Like what were we doing there in the first place...

By the way, here's the paragraph that followed your cherry-picked example from the New York Times article from December 5, 2012:

No evidence has emerged linking the weapons provided by the Qataris during the uprising against Col. Muammar el-Quaddafi to the attack that killed four Americans at the United States diplomatic compound in Benghazi Libya in September

Link: New York Times December 5, 2012

Just one example of why we provide actual links to quotations ... for accuracy if not honesty.

a reply to: CrawlingChaos

See above. I'm fairly certain that every one of your quotes, provided with context, isn't quite as clear cut as you want them to be.

And so ... you've proved that I did not call you a liar. Thanks.

I can't help what your guilty conscience may be telling you, but I only said what I said, which was NOT to call you a liar.

Speaking of adult conversation, why not focus on the facts instead of me for a change, eh?

The fact like, you've cited the Administration with illegal acts: what illegal acts?

EDIT: You keep saying illegal acts, but you don't give any specifics. Can you at least cite what you're talking about?

And please, leave the silly personal comments aside ... it looks ridiculous ... even more ridiculous than your faulty citations.

Gryphon...

I never said those weapons were used in the killing of four diplomats..... And reading the articles, even my quotes would have made that rather clear.

The proof in the pudding will be if Russian planes are getting shot at by Missiles from MANPADS systems.

a reply to: CrawlingChaos

CC, you used a quote from the New York Times in your diatribe about illegal acts on the part of Clinton, et. al.

I showed that the VERY NEXT PARAGRAPH AFTER YOUR QUOTE states that there was no evidence linking what you are desperately trying to link.

Now you're merely twisting out of being proven to be cherry-picking your "information."

Focus: what illegal acts? Specific acts, specific laws broken, etc.