The liberal media’s swooning over Hillary Clinton as a potential presidential candidate comes at the expense of holding her accountable for the attack in Benghazi.
On January 23, Hillary Clinton came before Congress to testify about her State Department’s bungling of Benghazi and, when pressed about how the administration lied about the causes of the raid, coldly pronounced: “What difference, at this point, does it make?” The reaction of network anchors and reporters wasn’t to condemn the chilling dodge, but to herald it as a moment of righteous indignation. When it was revealed, in July, that Benghazi survivors were being forced to sign non-disclosure agreements, the Big Three networks responded with a yawn, offering not one single story.
Clinton—who claimed “full responsibility” for the attack—was never even interviewed by the Accountability Review Board. But this blatant oversight never piqued the curiosity of liberal journalists. Instead, a Washington Post reporter mocked it as a “Fox News super-story,” and Chris Hayes from MSNBC branded the ongoing Benghazi investigation as a “witch hunt.”
The charges were filed under seal in a complaint in New York against several people, including Ahmed Abu Khattalah, leader of a Libyan militia that officials believe was involved in the assault, the officials said. Investigators continue to develop their case against Khattalah and others who they believe were involved in the assault, CNN reports.
He also told the network he had not been questioned by Libyan authorities or the FBI in the investigation. Republicans, who have accused the White House of not increasing security before the attack, of botching the response to it, and of misleading the public for political gain less than two months before the November election.
The administration later acknowledged, however, that the attacks were the work of a possible terrorist group affiliated with al-Qaida and not a reaction to the video.
Rice, who is now national security adviser, reportedly was a key force behind the Obama administration’s decision to close 20 embassies and consulates throughout the Middle East and North Africa in light of possible al-Qaida attacks.
The senators, members of the Armed Services Committee, have repeatedly charged that the administration, the State Department, and other federal agencies have barred those
And last week, CNN reported that as many as 35 CIA operatives were on the ground during the attacks — and that the agency was working feverishly to prevent those involved from talking to Congress or the media.
Some of the operatives have been polygraphed every month since January to determine who might be discussing the attacks, CNN reported.
“You have no idea the amount of pressure being brought to bear on anyone with knowledge of this operation,” The sources described the efforts to CNN as pure intimidation — even threats to end the careers of unauthorized leakers. The white house, state and other federal agencies have barred those who worked in Benghazi during the attacks from testifying before Congress. “CIA employees are always free to speak to Congress if they want.”
He added the agency was unaware of any retaliation against any employee, or of any employees being prevented from “sharing a concern with Congress about the Benghazi incident.” U.S. agencies in Benghazi were moving portable surface-to-air missiles out of Libya, through Turkey, and into the hands of Syrian rebels.
They were only helping the new Libyan government to secure such weapons within the country, CNN reports.
President Barack Obama revealed for the first time the existence of a sealed indictment in the Benghazi terror attack, a move that would mean legal trouble for anyone other than the commander-in-chief.
.“[W]e have informed, I think, the public that there’s a sealed indictment,” the president said. “It’s sealed for a reason. But we are intent on capturing those who carried out this attack, and we’re going to stay on it until we get them.” “The [president], by virtue of his position, can’t violate any non-disclosure/confidentiality rule,” he told ABC News. “One of the perks of being the head
of the executive branch: Nothing he says is technically a leak. If he does it, it is authorized. ”However, “An argument could be made that a sealed matter can only be unsealed by a court,” he added. A spokesman for the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Washington and the DOJ both declined to comment when contacted by ABC News.A White House official said the president was only “referencing widely reported information and was not asked about, nor did he comment on any specific indictment.”
Sources—bozell, mrc, Washington post, todd beamon, newsmax, cnn, fox, Jason howerton, the blaze