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.

 

Hillary’s Video Claim Officially Proven to Be Deliberate Lie

page: 13
43
<< 10  11  12    14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 26 2015 @ 05:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: Indigo5
The criminal part is where they had an attack in cairo and already knew that Stephens was seriously concerned because of lack of support yet they still ignored his request even after things began to blow up around him. Incompetence can be criminal.

There were several cables in the days prior requesting protection and support and as soon as things began to fall apart they should have responded before anything ever happened to Stephens.

That little tidbit of logic I just wrote also ignores the fact that Clinton was the one who put the people in harms way in the first place and then she ignored hundreds of request over the coarse of months in an area where they should not have been there in the first place.

Either way lerner is cleared now and the remnants of irs racism has been swept under the rug.

Does anyone know why we had an embassy in the area at the time anyhow. I mean what kind of reasoning could justify putting resources under protected in that area at that time.



look, the ambassador was a big boy, the state department wanted him to stay in Tripoli...now unless you wanted Obama to send in MP's and have him arrested, and sent home, there was nothing else they could do. this was 99% the fault of the terrorists, and the 1% is his fault for going anyway, and not having enough fire power to back him........if the state department didn't have the adequate support, he should have cooled his heels in Tripoli, period.....the republican asswipes on that committee treated her like she was on trial for murder. they were practically foaming at the mouth, and Goudy was sweating like he was on a treadmill. no man would have put up with that crap they would have walked out.




posted on Oct, 26 2015 @ 05:29 PM
link   
portable lie detector, Micro in size -The Audio Deception Detector -is the world's first portable lie detector! It will fit in the palm of your hand. This high-tech lie detector is a great device for your lie detection needs. You can use it in person and on the phone. You can also use it to analyze audio recordings and use it to analyze audio statements from television, or from the audio of recorded video. Because everything is always not black and white,the Deception Detector gives you an analysis of any audio statement. IT can be used over the phone or watching TV , Now you will know who is LYING !

www.pimall.com...

and

www.geeky-gadgets.com...

and

www.electromax.com...

and

www.coolthings.com...

and

www.nbcnews.com...



posted on Oct, 26 2015 @ 05:39 PM
link   
a reply to: jimmyx






now unless you wanted Obama to send in MP's and have him arrested, and sent home, there was nothing else they could do.



Your two options are having Stephens arrested or do nothing

Let us not ask you for situational awareness training

How about after Hillary sent him there to get eyes on the ground she then take his recommendations into account or remove them from the area but not ignore the request for months until he was murdered.


Can you really imagine yourself sending someone to a place like that then not taking their call after you told them to go there and report back?



posted on Oct, 26 2015 @ 06:08 PM
link   
Apparently, some have not read any of the results of the 13 previous investigations into Benghazi, as we are here regurgitating material that has been answered, literally, for years.

May I suggest The Senate Report on The Terrorist Attacks on US Facilities in Benghazi Libya, September 11-12, 2012



posted on Oct, 26 2015 @ 06:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Apparently, some have not read any of the results of the 13 previous investigations into Benghazi, as we are here regurgitating material that has been answered, literally, for years.

May I suggest The Senate Report on The Terrorist Attacks on US Facilities in Benghazi Libya, September 11-12, 2012


Funny how that report is the declassified version. I bet the classified version has a much different view.

AND it is authored in part by Dianne Feinstein, who is a big Hillary and Obama rubber stamp and Parrot.

Maybe you can find everyone an unbiased version of events?



posted on Oct, 26 2015 @ 09:08 PM
link   
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Why? So you can guess there's really another version somewhere that confirms your wild beliefs?

I'll pass. What about the other six investigations, twelve other hearings, etc. that come to the same conclusions?

Pass again. Enjoy your fantasies.



posted on Oct, 26 2015 @ 10:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: yuppa

You'd have to ask Mrs. Clinton about her difference different choices of words at different times in different venues ... I don't pretend to be able to read minds like some here and in the Congress.

So, there is no lie that you know of ... just a different description? Fair enough, I can see that too.

The only place that Mrs. Clinton has ever been convicted of anything is in the minds of Republicans.

Seriously, though, you couldn't afford six seconds to type that into a search engine and find out for yourself?



Different descriptions under oath can be considered decption though.



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 02:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Why? So you can guess there's really another version somewhere that confirms your wild beliefs?

I'll pass. What about the other six investigations, twelve other hearings, etc. that come to the same conclusions?

Pass again. Enjoy your fantasies.


HAHA, I knew you would be stuck on that one, and not be able to back up your assumptions.

Because of the fact that there is a classified and unclassified version of the Benghazi report scandal that Hillary and Obama made happen, we know that there is incriminating evidence against both of them.
And because they used people like Dianne Feinstein to "assist" in this fatal tragedy, proves beyond any doubt that they needed help to cover their asses.
AND: You are sadly mistaken if you think only Republicans care when officials that are democrats break the laws of this country.
I know plenty of liberal democrats who want to see law breakers in government punished when they break the law, and they don't care if some of them are democrats. Unlike you, they don't wish to be a part of "aiding and abetting" crimes, regardless of partisan membership.
It seems you don't mind when officials break the law and get people killed, as long as they are democrats. When I see a republican or a democrat in the news who does something unethical or illegal, I want to see them punished and removed! And so should you!





What about the other six investigations, twelve other hearings, etc. that come to the same conclusions?


All done by turncoats, and Obama and Hillary approved investigators and personell, obviously.
edit on 27-10-2015 by NoCorruptionAllowed because: eta



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 02:46 AM
link   
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

I will point again to the results of every investigation and inquiry to date that has been conducted regarding Benghazi.

Prove that there is "a classified and unclassified version" that contains incriminating evidence against both of them.

How exactly did the Executive Branch compel the Legislative Branch to do their bidding 13 times in a row?

Your obsessions don't make any sense. Your attempts to make this about me are pitiful.

You want lawbreakers in government punished? Start with Bush and Dick Cheney.

*marvels at the sudden silence in the room*



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 02:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed


All done by turncoats, and Obama and Hillary approved investigators and personell, obviously.


Prove it. Show us the evidence.



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 03:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

apps.washingtonpost.com...

The fact you don't even know if there is a classified and unclassified version of the Benghazi report says it all in a nutshell.

All you're doing is propping up the criminals you support, and you aren't even educating yourself on their activities. This means you give blanket approval to them without regard for their ethics and morals, and criminality.

Also, the criminal investigation is still ongoing and is being investigated by the FBI still to this day.

And I said the fact that there IS a classified and an unclassified version of the report shows that there is stuff they don't want the public to know. Whether that incriminates anyone is unknowable when the document is classified.

I love how you twist what people say so it steers your boat back on course, and makes the other person's boat appear off course.


Oh, and I never approved of Bush or Cheney, and would love to see them put behind bars.. Way to Ass-U-Me again. Foot in mouth disease?

edit on 27-10-2015 by NoCorruptionAllowed because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 04:23 AM
link   
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Hey, some actual "evidence" for a change ... maybe there is hope for you! Did you notice the second part of my sentence (speaking of someone trying desperately to twist what is said) ... here let me quote it for you:



Prove that there is "a classified and unclassified version" that contains incriminating evidence against both of them.


And because I'm sure this is the next silly place you'd take this, "them" refers to Clinton and Obama.

Now, prove what the "classified" version says about "them," rather than assuming it proves your irrational beliefs.

I've stated several times here that I don't "support" Hillary. I'm simply tired of seeing the Republican Congress waste our money. Frankly, I don't care what you believe as you haven't proven yourself worthy of anything but scorn, but why not observe T&C for once and quit talking about me, what you think of me, what you are trying to avoid by talking about me?

It's boring.

You know about as much about the FBI's investigation as you do about any "classified" Benghazi reports ... that is to say, you know nothing. FBI Director Won't Comment on OnGoing Clinton Investigation

I see you're very quiet on your claim that every investigation (13 so far) has been turned aside or infiltrated by Obama and Clinton. Did you realize how ludicrous that is?



edit on 4Tue, 27 Oct 2015 04:24:19 -050015p0420151066 by Gryphon66 because: Spelling



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 04:41 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

You mangle everything too much in your replies to be coherent. You misstate what I have said as well. I can see you love Hillary and Obama, and so as they say, love is blind.

Lets just leave it at that.

And for this:



Prove it, show us the evidence.


You mean Show you the evidence. Everyone else already knows how Hillary and Obama got people killed in Benghazi and tried to cover it up, lying that it was all caused by a video on youtube. Now everyone EXCEPT you seems to comprehend all of this.

I think "WE" have done more than our share to show you what WE already know, but you refuse to accept the truth.

As I said before. Love is BLIND (as a bat).

Moving along now..
edit on 27-10-2015 by NoCorruptionAllowed because: eta



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 04:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
a reply to: Gryphon66

You mangle everything too much in your replies to be coherent. You misstate what I have said as well. I can see you love Hillary and Obama, and so as they say, love is blind.

Lets just leave it at that.


More attempts to talk about me rather than the subject.

You have no evidence for your wild claims, and so you whine about me.

/shrug I'll be glad to leave it at that. Let's see if you do.



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 08:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: Gryphon66

You get the national deflection award.




Said the poster who has decided to make the "Clinton lied" OP about insufficient security resources?



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 08:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: Indigo5

....
Does anyone know why we had an embassy in the area at the time anyhow. I mean what kind of reasoning could justify putting resources under protected in that area at that time.

.....



Having the Embassy did 3 things. First and fore most it provided diplomatic cover for the Weapons-to-Terrorists program. Second establishing the embassy provided legitimacy to the State Dept.'s war effort against the stable Libyian government. Third, it provided a base of operations for Clinton & Blumenthal's business interests in, how did the WSJ phrase it, "The new Libyian economy."

edit on 27-10-2015 by CrawlingChaos because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 09:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: Indigo5

I made a clear point that she was in charge of putting him there and in charge of protecting him and she failed to protect him and now some seek to dismiss her responsibility of putting him there in the first place.



You really need to research the evidence...

No...Clinton did not put him there..

No...State was not responsible for his security...

Who paid the rent on the Benghazi compound?



originally posted by: deadeyedick
Was Hillary responsible for the embassy being open there?



In the final weeks before the deadly Benghazi attack in September 2012, State Department officials serving in the tumultuous Libyan city had increasing worries about safety, reaching out repeatedly to the CIA and Libyan government for extra security and dealing with landlord and guard issues that raised additional red flags, according to documents recovered from the burned-out compound.

www.washingtontimes.com...

It was a CIA operation to buy back weapons. The CIA paid the rent on the consulate and was responsible for security in the operation. It was their operation.

When Kaddafi looked like he was finished, the US gave the rebels arms on the ground. After the government toppled, the arms looked to be making their way into extremists hands and the CIA launched a program to try and recover the arms from the extremists. Stephens was their to network and glad hand with his contacts and find out where the arms were, the the CIA team nearby was there to go out and purchase or seize the weapons once located.

THAT is why the "consulate" was sending requests to the CIA, not State for security.

AND every time State told the CIA Stephens wanted more security, CIA responded they had it covered.

That is why the CIA was paying the rent for the Behngazi consulate and annex..

AND this all about to hit the fan...



In a month which has seen one republican leader after another step up to acknowledge that the party’s years-long investigation into Hillary Clinton’s handling of Benghazi and email has been nothing more than an attempt at influencing her poll numbers in the 2016 election, it now appears to be Trey Gowdy’s turn to come clean. He’s the republican congressman who is by default in charge of the Benghazi committee. And he just admitted to a game changer.



Gowdy and the republican Benghazi committee have been attacking by using a variety of government documents which have been heavily redacted to the point that it’s never been entirely clear just what context they would be in if not for all of the redactions and blackouts.

After democrats asked the CIA to declassify the documents so that the public could see what was really being presented, the CIA responded by stating that it had never asked for anything to be redacted.

When questioned under pressure, Gowdy admitted that he himself decided to redact large portions of the documents based on his own personal judgment of what information he did or didn’t want the public to know.

www.dailynewsbin.com...
edit on 27-10-2015 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 09:20 AM
link   
CNN


But in practice - and this is what so few people have focused on - the larger U.S. presence was in a secret outpost operated by the CIA.

About 30 people were evacuated from Benghazi the morning after the deadly attack last September 11; more than 20 of them were CIA employees.

Sources at the State Department say this context explains why there was so much debate over those talking points. Essentially, they say, the State Department felt it was being blamed for bungling what it saw as largely a CIA operation in Benghazi.

Internally at the CIA, sources tell CNN there was a big debate after the attacks to acknowledge that the two former Navy SEALs killed – Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty – were CIA employees. At a 2010 attack in Khost, Afghanistan, when seven CIA officers were killed in the line of duty, the agency stepped forward and acknowledged their service and sacrifice. But in this instance - for reasons many in the Obama administration did not fully understand - it took the CIA awhile to "roll back their covers." Petraeus did not attend their funerals.

LINK

Washington Post Fact Checker


In fact, only seven of the 30 Americans evacuated from Benghazi had any connection to the State Department; the rest were affiliated with the CIA.

LINK

Wall Street Journal


When the bodies of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans killed in Benghazi, Libya, arrived at Andrews Air Force Base after the Sept. 11 attack, they were greeted by the president, the vice president and the secretaries of state and defense. Conspicuously absent was CIA Director David Petraeus.

Officials close to Mr. Petraeus say he stayed away in an effort to conceal the agency's role in collecting intelligence and providing security in Benghazi. Two of the four men who died that day, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, were former Navy SEAL commandos who were publicly identified as State Department contract security officers, but who actually worked as Central Intelligence Agency contractors, U.S. officials say.

Of the more than 30 American officials evacuated from Benghazi following the deadly assault, only seven worked for the State Department. Nearly all the rest worked for the CIA, under diplomatic cover, which was a principal purpose of the consulate, these officials said.

The CIA's secrecy affected how the U.S. government dealt with the families of the two slain contractors. Kate Quigley, Mr. Doherty's sister, said officials who visited her mother in Massachusetts identified themselves as State Department representatives. Officials said the State Department deferred to the CIA to contact the families and the "notification teams" included CIA officers.


[url=http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204712904578092853621061838.html]



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 09:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

Excellent evidence-based summations.

Thank you; that was a joy to read!



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 10:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

good info in your post






AND every time State told the CIA Stephens wanted more security, CIA responded they had it covered.

Where can this be proven somewhat?




top topics



 
43
<< 10  11  12    14 >>

log in

join