Get PJ Media on your Apple

Ordered Liberty

Hillary Clinton’s Benghazi Dodge

May 31st, 2014 - 8:26 am

Is Hillary Clinton a charlatan or just the crappiest lawyer in Washington? As the Obama Left likes to say, that’s a false choice. There’s no reason she can’t be both.

The question arises thanks to yet another excellent report on the Obama administration’s Benghazi fraud by the Weekly Standard’s Steve Hayes. The Benghazi fraud is a prominent subject of my new book, Faithless Execution, which traces the debacle from the president’s unauthorized, unprovoked, and ultimately disastrous instigation of a war against the Qaddafi regime; through his (and Secretary Clinton’s) recklessly irresponsible failure to provide security for the American officials they mysteriously stationed in Benghazi (a jihadist hotbed that is one of the world’s most dangerous places for Americans); through the president’s shocking failure to attempt to rescue Americans under siege on the night of September 11, 2012; and finally through Mr. Obama’s carefully orchestrated deception, in which the administration tried to hoodwink the country into blaming the murders of our ambassador and three other Americans on a video rather than on his calamitous policy of empowering Islamic supremacists.

Steve’s latest report homes in on Mrs. Clinton’s infamous “What difference, at this point, does it make” caterwaul, emitted during tense questioning by Senator Ron Johnson (R., WI) during a hearing on Benghazi.

Apparently, the former secretary of state struggles to rationalize this appalling testimony in her forthcoming memoir, Hard Choices. As notorious for taking no responsibility as for committing blunders over which accountability becomes an issue, Mrs. Clinton complains that her “What difference” yowl has been distorted. It was not, she insists, an exhibition of callous indifference; it was, in Steve’s description, “an attempt to redirect the questioning from its focus on the hours before the attacks to preventing similar attacks in the future.” Or, as Mrs. Clinton reportedly writes:

My point was simple: If someone breaks into your home and takes your family hostage, how much time are you going to spend focused on how the intruder spent his day as opposed to how best to rescue your loved ones and then prevent it from happening again?

As Steve quite rightly observes, this is nonsense. By the time of Mrs. Clinton’s testimony, the Benghazi Massacre—and, indeed, even the Obama administration’s fraudulent “The Video Did It” cover-up of the cause of the Benghazi Massacre—was several months old. We were long, long past the intruder-in-the-home phase. We were in the accountability phase—the phase of: let’s now establish what actually happened and why, so we can then figure out how to prevent a recurrence.

Any competent lawyer knows that during the investigative and trial stages that follow a public debacle—to say nothing of an act of war in which American officials were derelict in responding to a murderous terrorist attack—the obligation of the witnesses is not to redirect the questions. It is to answer the questions. Any competent trial judge would have sustained an objection to the secretary of state’s evasive answer, striking it from the record as non-responsive.

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
Hillary Clinton is a pathological liar and that should end the discussion. There is nothing in this world that can vindicate a person that lies to the families and loved ones of those killed in Benghazi. Politics is a dirty business, but she makes it a filthy business.
25 weeks ago
25 weeks ago Link To Comment
"Clinton getting away with the position she is taking in her book about Benghazi is hinged on those who would vote for her being completely ignorant of the facts. "


That's been a very safe assumption for a long time, now.

But there's more to it. The modern "moderates" are no longer merely ignorant of the facts, they are hostile to the facts.

25 weeks ago
25 weeks ago Link To Comment
The point is not whether she is a crappy lawyer, the point is they conspired to cover up the underlying plot that she is desperate to keep from exposure.

Her outburst was nervousness that the probing was getting too close to hitting a nerve.

Her reaction does not emanate from lack of lawyering skill, it emanates from lack of scruples, honor, ethics and morals.

They are hiding a big, ugly scheme. She does not want that scheme to come to light. Everything that follows is in concert with the coverup.

Forget her talent at alibis and excuses, focus on the plot she is terrified will be revealed.
25 weeks ago
25 weeks ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (54)
All Comments   (54)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
Madame Secretary
_
If you don't understand why the truth matters, why honor and duty matter-than your resignation is a most welcome development
24 weeks ago
24 weeks ago Link To Comment
I'm surprised that Hill C. has not yet proclaimed the Benghazi attack "a vast right wing conspiracy," that Ambassador Stevens was murdered and defiled by "vast right wing conspirators," and that her failure to make any efforts of rescue was thwarted by yet again, that "vast right wing conspiracy." Frankly, I hope she is treated as the fraud she seems to be when she next appears before Congress.
24 weeks ago
24 weeks ago Link To Comment
Every thinking person on earth KNEW H. Clinton was a liar years ago. She was appointed and approved anyway. We also knew she and Obama and John Kerry were/are totally incompetent at everything we have seen them attempt except being elusive. They love the power and the money parts, and are the least competent Americans on the face of the earth and the poorest representatives of America that can be had. I am shamed that they are even parts of our government. America doesn't deserve this.
24 weeks ago
24 weeks ago Link To Comment
From Snopes.com we have the following information regarding Michelle & Obama's law licenses. In Michele's case she "ceeded her license pending its suspension." In Obama's case it was going to be revoked subject to irregularities in his application form, so he "voluntarily retired his license in 2008." Hillary is the same case. Her license was suspended as was Bill Clinton's for 5 years as a result of his Monica tryst. It was re-instated only for Arkansas, though. Hillary's was never reinstated. One has to wonder what ever happened at Rose Law Firm and the White Water Real Estate scam both Hillary and Bill Clinton were running fleecing unsuspecting investors. Gee, sounds just like Hillary's Benghazi Senate hearings...lying, stonewalling, scheming and out-and-out prevarication of the highest order. Darn, We The People have been fooled once, are We The People going to be fooled again? Heaven forbid We The People commit the same mistake twice..in a row. Pray. Amen. God Bless America. Wake-up Americans, she's being sold to the highest bidder (just like Bill Clinton did with America's technology, selling it to the chinese). Hillary has to go, back home and "bake some cookies!"
24 weeks ago
24 weeks ago Link To Comment
For both hildahag and her boss - -
................
Where were you and what were you doing about the attack as it evolved?
..........
[Looking forward to my Kindle's arrival on Tuesday ...]
24 weeks ago
24 weeks ago Link To Comment
She's slippery but not smart.

Trey Gowdy is not going to let her off the hook. I rather suspect her attempt to distract the public with her irrelevant arguments - which landed like the proverbial lead balloon this week - may simply be a setup for her to refuse to answer a subpoena from the Select Committee.

That in turn sets her up as a supposedly sympathetic victim of a "partisan Republican witch hunt". Then after refusing to testify, she thus effectively dares the full House to find her in Contempt of Congress. We all know that the House has no enforcement powers, and so it will end there, legally speaking.

The political reaction to this scheduled theater performance will then determine whether HRC effectively gets away with it and opens the door for her to run for President ... or alternatively, the public reaction to HRC's refusal to cooperate is negative, and thereby convinces her to pass and she slinks away from public life while "refusing to play politics on the backs of the dead".

Of course, those would be the Dead that she allowed to be killed .. but oh well, "at this point, what difference does it make anyway?"
24 weeks ago
24 weeks ago Link To Comment
Self aggrandizement takes on a new dimension here. Hillary Clinton could no more see herself as the mere witness she was than she could honorably and faithfully follow the terms of her office. She must not be in a position of public trust again. Ever.
24 weeks ago
24 weeks ago Link To Comment
Why should anyone believe Hillary? Back in the days of Watergate, she was one of the democrat attorneys who went after Nixon with a vengeance. Evidently, she was fired by her supervisor for "lying," and for unethical behavior. Fast forward to 2014, lying and unethical behavior seems to be the norm. She also said, "the elites need to make the decisions for the masses." That is what progressives believe. That, we, the people, are barbarians that need to be controlled. And how will, we the people, respond to this arrogance?
24 weeks ago
24 weeks ago Link To Comment
She's been the same since day one, apparently.

"In order to pull this off, Zeifman said that Rodham wrote a fraudulent legal brief, and confiscated public documents."

http://jacksonville.com/reason/fact-check/2014-03-08/story/fact-check-was-hillary-clinton-fired-watergate-investigation#ixzz33Osbx5mR
24 weeks ago
24 weeks ago Link To Comment
Her posting at State was just a bone tossed to her to offset Obama's tire tracks up her back. She didn't want the job; she wasn't qualified to do the job. And something went wrong on her watch; thing is, what difference does it make? She wants to be President; State was just a stepping stone. Like Obama, she's learning that taking on a 'job' means assuming the responsibilities that go along with it; or not. It's all just so unfair.
24 weeks ago
24 weeks ago Link To Comment
"Her posting at State was just a bone tossed to her to offset Obama's tire tracks up her back. "

Not a bone, but a means of controlling her, muzzling her.

She couldn't turn it down, because of the prestige of it and the "credentials" she would earn for a future run. But, as SecState, she couldn't spend the time badmouthing her boss and undermining him for a run in 4 years. It guaranteed that the entire Clinton machine, instead of working for his destruction, would be solidly on HIS team for at LEAST 4 years, and possibly longer, depending on how things were going.

A dangerous adversary, check mated AND co-opted in ONE move.

It was brilliant Machiavellian politics, masterfully executed by a guy who is STILL thought of as stupid.

But only by stupid people.



24 weeks ago
24 weeks ago Link To Comment
Oh, I don't know. It's pretty easy, even for dumb guys, to take advantage of someone who wants something so badly that they'd do anything, anything to get it. Like pushers and junkies.
24 weeks ago
24 weeks ago Link To Comment
Exactly. As long as Clinton remained in the Senate, she would be a real rival instead of just one of many on Barry's team of (ha-ha) rivals. And Hill was able to jump out of a shared spotlight into one that shined on her alone. Plus is was good PR to cosy up to the guy who'd just beat her pants suit off and be seen as a team player. It was the right play for both of them.
24 weeks ago
24 weeks ago Link To Comment
It doesn't take a genius Machaivellian for Obama to do what he did putting HRC in his cabinet ... Presidents have been doing that since George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, FDR, JFK, LBJ, etc etc.... it just means that he isn't a complete political idiot, which I don't believe anybody has accused Obama of being. He just isn't a very competent President.
24 weeks ago
24 weeks ago Link To Comment
How about both?
24 weeks ago
24 weeks ago Link To Comment
1 2 3 4 Next View All

2 Trackbacks to “Hillary Clinton’s Benghazi Dodge”