RW (Breitbart & Co.) source Joshua Goldberg arrested for terrorism, tried to incite 9-11 like attack

[Freewill]

What a sorry excuse for a human being.....of course Briebart incites the already brain damaged to anger, so it's no surprise.

I believe NaziBoy, Statshisfuckingnameis, just stepped on his OWN DICK, perhaps some of you left wing 's can confirm.....

Daily Kos Founder’s Breitbart Attack Backfires Big Time!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

youngcons ^ | september 12, 2015 | Andrew Mark Miller
Markos Moulitsas, the founder of the terrible ultra liberal “news” sites Daily Kos and Vox, took to Twitter on Saturday morning to criticize Breitbart for employing Joshua Ryne Goldberg who was arrested for allegedly plotting to commit a terrorist attack on Friday’s anniversary of 9/11. -snip Only one problem Goldberg didn’t actually write for Breitbart. Not only that, he was a contributor for many left wing sites including the Daily Kos, Moulitsas’ own site.

Me thinks you just killed a thread, unless we all just want to discuss how Stat stepped in it.

 

[Vigilante]

What a sorry excuse for a human being.....of course Briebart incites the already brain damaged to anger, so it's no surprise.

I believe NaziBoy, Statshisfuckingnameis, just stepped on his OWN DICK, perhaps some of you left wing 's can confirm.....

Daily Kos Founder’s Breitbart Attack Backfires Big Time!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

youngcons ^ | september 12, 2015 | Andrew Mark Miller
Markos Moulitsas, the founder of the terrible ultra liberal “news” sites Daily Kos and Vox, took to Twitter on Saturday morning to criticize Breitbart for employing Joshua Ryne Goldberg who was arrested for allegedly plotting to commit a terrorist attack on Friday’s anniversary of 9/11. -snip Only one problem Goldberg didn’t actually write for Breitbart. Not only that, he was a contributor for many left wing sites including the Daily Kos, Moulitsas’ own site.

Me thinks you just killed a thread, unless we all just want to discuss how Stat stepped in it.

It will be fun to see if any deranged communists/DemocRATs do decide to make comment...I can hardly wait!

 

[Derideo_Te]

What exact crime did he commit? It says he was pretending, is that against the law? Obama, Susan Rice and Mrs. Clinton could be accused of actually lighting the fire of unrest when they lied about a video.

I guess Faux News doesn't keep it's viewers updated.


Uh-oh. The New York Times reported today that, Ahmed Abu Khattala, a suspected attacker of the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, “told other Libyans” that the attack was instigated by the infamous anti-Islam video, Innocence of Muslims, originally posted on YouTube. If true, this would confirm the administration’s early suspicions that the attack occurred in response to the video — a suspicion that was initially detailed in a CIA memo.
Benghazi Suspect Says Attacks Were Instigated by Anti-Islam Internet Video - The Daily Banter

How convenient. I have no doubt you believe Muslim extremists. It wasn't a protest it was an attack, you do know the difference?

Hillary got warning Benghazi attack was premeditated terrorism

Sidney Blumenthal, Clinton’s longtime trusted friend and former campaign adviser, sent an intelligence assessment to the secretary of state’s personal account on Sept. 13, 2012 — two days after four Americans were killed at the Benghazi outpost.

Citing sensitive sources, Blumenthal wrote Clinton that the attacks “had been planned for approximately one month” and carried out by “well-trained, hardened killers” from Ansar al-Sharia, the Libyan terrorist group.

The emails, obtained by The New York Times, says the attackers wanted to use protests as cover for the siege. This was a change from his sources’ assessment a day earlier — which he also shared with Clinton — that the attacks were a reaction to a US video that defamed the Prophet Muhammad.

How does receiving an email "two days after four Americans were killed" constitute a "warning"?



The home schooled extremist rightwingers should ask for their money back.

 

[Freewill]

What exact crime did he commit? It says he was pretending, is that against the law? Obama, Susan Rice and Mrs. Clinton could be accused of actually lighting the fire of unrest when they lied about a video.

I guess Faux News doesn't keep it's viewers updated.


Uh-oh. The New York Times reported today that, Ahmed Abu Khattala, a suspected attacker of the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, “told other Libyans” that the attack was instigated by the infamous anti-Islam video, Innocence of Muslims, originally posted on YouTube. If true, this would confirm the administration’s early suspicions that the attack occurred in response to the video — a suspicion that was initially detailed in a CIA memo.
Benghazi Suspect Says Attacks Were Instigated by Anti-Islam Internet Video - The Daily Banter

How convenient. I have no doubt you believe Muslim extremists. It wasn't a protest it was an attack, you do know the difference?

Hillary got warning Benghazi attack was premeditated terrorism

Sidney Blumenthal, Clinton’s longtime trusted friend and former campaign adviser, sent an intelligence assessment to the secretary of state’s personal account on Sept. 13, 2012 — two days after four Americans were killed at the Benghazi outpost.

Citing sensitive sources, Blumenthal wrote Clinton that the attacks “had been planned for approximately one month” and carried out by “well-trained, hardened killers” from Ansar al-Sharia, the Libyan terrorist group.

The emails, obtained by The New York Times, says the attackers wanted to use protests as cover for the siege. This was a change from his sources’ assessment a day earlier — which he also shared with Clinton — that the attacks were a reaction to a US video that defamed the Prophet Muhammad.

How does receiving an email "two days after four Americans were killed" constitute a "warning"?



The home schooled extremist rightwingers should ask for their money back.

Completely off the subject of the OP, which went down like the Titanic, let me offer you this from the article:

Clinton’s early statements mentioned the “inflammatory” video but said there was no justification for the attack. It wasn’t until Sept. 21 that Clinton referred to the Benghazi deaths as a “terrorist attack.”

The article actually says two days. If you look at the protests over the video there was one on 9/11 in Egypt and the attack on the embassy. Most occurred after Obama, Rice and Mrs. Clinton made their very unfounded claims. Look at facts. There were no protests before 9/11 of that year. It was the anniversary of 9/11. Without the time for one shred of evidence either way all of the administration got behind the protest BS. Even though their were live feeds of the compound, not to the Whitehouse as they claim. So pretty soon after they should have known, and did, and lied as has been repeatedly shown. There was and election to be won at the point what difference did it make?

 

[Derideo_Te]

What exact crime did he commit? It says he was pretending, is that against the law? Obama, Susan Rice and Mrs. Clinton could be accused of actually lighting the fire of unrest when they lied about a video.

I guess Faux News doesn't keep it's viewers updated.


Uh-oh. The New York Times reported today that, Ahmed Abu Khattala, a suspected attacker of the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, “told other Libyans” that the attack was instigated by the infamous anti-Islam video, Innocence of Muslims, originally posted on YouTube. If true, this would confirm the administration’s early suspicions that the attack occurred in response to the video — a suspicion that was initially detailed in a CIA memo.
Benghazi Suspect Says Attacks Were Instigated by Anti-Islam Internet Video - The Daily Banter

How convenient. I have no doubt you believe Muslim extremists. It wasn't a protest it was an attack, you do know the difference?

Hillary got warning Benghazi attack was premeditated terrorism

Sidney Blumenthal, Clinton’s longtime trusted friend and former campaign adviser, sent an intelligence assessment to the secretary of state’s personal account on Sept. 13, 2012 — two days after four Americans were killed at the Benghazi outpost.

Citing sensitive sources, Blumenthal wrote Clinton that the attacks “had been planned for approximately one month” and carried out by “well-trained, hardened killers” from Ansar al-Sharia, the Libyan terrorist group.

The emails, obtained by The New York Times, says the attackers wanted to use protests as cover for the siege. This was a change from his sources’ assessment a day earlier — which he also shared with Clinton — that the attacks were a reaction to a US video that defamed the Prophet Muhammad.

How does receiving an email "two days after four Americans were killed" constitute a "warning"?



The home schooled extremist rightwingers should ask for their money back.

Completely off the subject of the OP, which went down like the Titanic, let me offer you this from the article:

Clinton’s early statements mentioned the “inflammatory” video but said there was no justification for the attack. It wasn’t until Sept. 21 that Clinton referred to the Benghazi deaths as a “terrorist attack.”

The article actually says two days. If you look at the protests over the video there was one on 9/11 in Egypt and the attack on the embassy. Most occurred after Obama, Rice and Mrs. Clinton made their very unfounded claims. Look at facts. There were no protests before 9/11 of that year. It was the anniversary of 9/11. Without the time for one shred of evidence either way all of the administration got behind the protest BS. Even though their were live feeds of the compound, not to the Whitehouse as they claim. So pretty soon after they should have known, and did, and lied as has been repeatedly shown. There was and election to be won at the point what difference did it make?

Completely off the subject of the OP

Ironic since YOU were the one who brought it up!

And your feeble attempt at backpedaling doesn't alter the fact that you failed to read your own link that made you look foolish.

And that is your problem, not mine.

Now I suggest you take your own advice and return to the OP topic before you embarrass yourself any further.

 

[Vigilante]

What exact crime did he commit? It says he was pretending, is that against the law? Obama, Susan Rice and Mrs. Clinton could be accused of actually lighting the fire of unrest when they lied about a video.

I guess Faux News doesn't keep it's viewers updated.


Uh-oh. The New York Times reported today that, Ahmed Abu Khattala, a suspected attacker of the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, “told other Libyans” that the attack was instigated by the infamous anti-Islam video, Innocence of Muslims, originally posted on YouTube. If true, this would confirm the administration’s early suspicions that the attack occurred in response to the video — a suspicion that was initially detailed in a CIA memo.
Benghazi Suspect Says Attacks Were Instigated by Anti-Islam Internet Video - The Daily Banter

How convenient. I have no doubt you believe Muslim extremists. It wasn't a protest it was an attack, you do know the difference?

Hillary got warning Benghazi attack was premeditated terrorism

Sidney Blumenthal, Clinton’s longtime trusted friend and former campaign adviser, sent an intelligence assessment to the secretary of state’s personal account on Sept. 13, 2012 — two days after four Americans were killed at the Benghazi outpost.

Citing sensitive sources, Blumenthal wrote Clinton that the attacks “had been planned for approximately one month” and carried out by “well-trained, hardened killers” from Ansar al-Sharia, the Libyan terrorist group.

The emails, obtained by The New York Times, says the attackers wanted to use protests as cover for the siege. This was a change from his sources’ assessment a day earlier — which he also shared with Clinton — that the attacks were a reaction to a US video that defamed the Prophet Muhammad.

How does receiving an email "two days after four Americans were killed" constitute a "warning"?



The home schooled extremist rightwingers should ask for their money back.

And here we have, after the email, on Sept. 14, Hillary and the obomanation BOTH declaring, AFTER the e-mail telling them it was a terrorist attack, these 2 corrupt murderers CLAIM it was an internet VIDEO that was to blame... Pay attention to 1:10 on the video where the Hildebeast put her HOOF in her mouth!
DT must have had a shot of oboma cock to even try to explain it away! You sick commie bastard, you scum can NEVER tell the truth, and would stick up for ANY fucking Democrat, even when they have a smoking gun in their hand!

 

[Vigilante]

I imagine I successfully closed down another stupid Subversive thread!

 

[Freewill]

I imagine I successfully closed down another stupid Subversive thread!

We will see, proving them wrong is the easy part, getting them to shut up is the challenge.

 

[Freewill]

What exact crime did he commit? It says he was pretending, is that against the law? Obama, Susan Rice and Mrs. Clinton could be accused of actually lighting the fire of unrest when they lied about a video.

I guess Faux News doesn't keep it's viewers updated.


Uh-oh. The New York Times reported today that, Ahmed Abu Khattala, a suspected attacker of the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, “told other Libyans” that the attack was instigated by the infamous anti-Islam video, Innocence of Muslims, originally posted on YouTube. If true, this would confirm the administration’s early suspicions that the attack occurred in response to the video — a suspicion that was initially detailed in a CIA memo.
Benghazi Suspect Says Attacks Were Instigated by Anti-Islam Internet Video - The Daily Banter

How convenient. I have no doubt you believe Muslim extremists. It wasn't a protest it was an attack, you do know the difference?

Hillary got warning Benghazi attack was premeditated terrorism

Sidney Blumenthal, Clinton’s longtime trusted friend and former campaign adviser, sent an intelligence assessment to the secretary of state’s personal account on Sept. 13, 2012 — two days after four Americans were killed at the Benghazi outpost.

Citing sensitive sources, Blumenthal wrote Clinton that the attacks “had been planned for approximately one month” and carried out by “well-trained, hardened killers” from Ansar al-Sharia, the Libyan terrorist group.

The emails, obtained by The New York Times, says the attackers wanted to use protests as cover for the siege. This was a change from his sources’ assessment a day earlier — which he also shared with Clinton — that the attacks were a reaction to a US video that defamed the Prophet Muhammad.

How does receiving an email "two days after four Americans were killed" constitute a "warning"?



The home schooled extremist rightwingers should ask for their money back.

Completely off the subject of the OP, which went down like the Titanic, let me offer you this from the article:

Clinton’s early statements mentioned the “inflammatory” video but said there was no justification for the attack. It wasn’t until Sept. 21 that Clinton referred to the Benghazi deaths as a “terrorist attack.”

The article actually says two days. If you look at the protests over the video there was one on 9/11 in Egypt and the attack on the embassy. Most occurred after Obama, Rice and Mrs. Clinton made their very unfounded claims. Look at facts. There were no protests before 9/11 of that year. It was the anniversary of 9/11. Without the time for one shred of evidence either way all of the administration got behind the protest BS. Even though their were live feeds of the compound, not to the Whitehouse as they claim. So pretty soon after they should have known, and did, and lied as has been repeatedly shown. There was and election to be won at the point what difference did it make?

Completely off the subject of the OP

Ironic since YOU were the one who brought it up!

And your feeble attempt at backpedaling doesn't alter the fact that you failed to read your own link that made you look foolish.

And that is your problem, not mine.

Now I suggest you take your own advice and return to the OP topic before you embarrass yourself any further.

Disregarding your attempt to reinvent what was actually posted. Mrs. Clinton was informed and went on for at least 9 days with the same lie. Mock me, insult me, deflect all you want but the truth is they all lied. What we all should be asking is why did they lie. Was it just to win an election, or to cover gun running to the Libyan rebels which cost Steven's his life?

 

[Derideo_Te]

I guess Faux News doesn't keep it's viewers updated.


Uh-oh. The New York Times reported today that, Ahmed Abu Khattala, a suspected attacker of the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, “told other Libyans” that the attack was instigated by the infamous anti-Islam video, Innocence of Muslims, originally posted on YouTube. If true, this would confirm the administration’s early suspicions that the attack occurred in response to the video — a suspicion that was initially detailed in a CIA memo.
Benghazi Suspect Says Attacks Were Instigated by Anti-Islam Internet Video - The Daily Banter

How convenient. I have no doubt you believe Muslim extremists. It wasn't a protest it was an attack, you do know the difference?

Hillary got warning Benghazi attack was premeditated terrorism

Sidney Blumenthal, Clinton’s longtime trusted friend and former campaign adviser, sent an intelligence assessment to the secretary of state’s personal account on Sept. 13, 2012 — two days after four Americans were killed at the Benghazi outpost.

Citing sensitive sources, Blumenthal wrote Clinton that the attacks “had been planned for approximately one month” and carried out by “well-trained, hardened killers” from Ansar al-Sharia, the Libyan terrorist group.

The emails, obtained by The New York Times, says the attackers wanted to use protests as cover for the siege. This was a change from his sources’ assessment a day earlier — which he also shared with Clinton — that the attacks were a reaction to a US video that defamed the Prophet Muhammad.

How does receiving an email "two days after four Americans were killed" constitute a "warning"?



The home schooled extremist rightwingers should ask for their money back.

Completely off the subject of the OP, which went down like the Titanic, let me offer you this from the article:

Clinton’s early statements mentioned the “inflammatory” video but said there was no justification for the attack. It wasn’t until Sept. 21 that Clinton referred to the Benghazi deaths as a “terrorist attack.”

The article actually says two days. If you look at the protests over the video there was one on 9/11 in Egypt and the attack on the embassy. Most occurred after Obama, Rice and Mrs. Clinton made their very unfounded claims. Look at facts. There were no protests before 9/11 of that year. It was the anniversary of 9/11. Without the time for one shred of evidence either way all of the administration got behind the protest BS. Even though their were live feeds of the compound, not to the Whitehouse as they claim. So pretty soon after they should have known, and did, and lied as has been repeatedly shown. There was and election to be won at the point what difference did it make?

Completely off the subject of the OP

Ironic since YOU were the one who brought it up!

And your feeble attempt at backpedaling doesn't alter the fact that you failed to read your own link that made you look foolish.

And that is your problem, not mine.

Now I suggest you take your own advice and return to the OP topic before you embarrass yourself any further.

Disregarding your attempt to reinvent what was actually posted. Mrs. Clinton was informed and went on for at least 9 days with the same lie. Mock me, insult me, deflect all you want but the truth is they all lied. What we all should be asking is why did they lie. Was it just to win an election, or to cover gun running to the Libyan rebels which cost Steven's his life?

Your own link has exposed your basic lack of honesty and integrity.

A normal person would have admitted that the link proved them wrong.

That you are incapable of admitting to being wrong makes you worse than those you seek to denigrate.

But that is your problem, not mine.

 

[Vigilante]

How convenient. I have no doubt you believe Muslim extremists. It wasn't a protest it was an attack, you do know the difference?

Hillary got warning Benghazi attack was premeditated terrorism

Sidney Blumenthal, Clinton’s longtime trusted friend and former campaign adviser, sent an intelligence assessment to the secretary of state’s personal account on Sept. 13, 2012 — two days after four Americans were killed at the Benghazi outpost.

Citing sensitive sources, Blumenthal wrote Clinton that the attacks “had been planned for approximately one month” and carried out by “well-trained, hardened killers” from Ansar al-Sharia, the Libyan terrorist group.

The emails, obtained by The New York Times, says the attackers wanted to use protests as cover for the siege. This was a change from his sources’ assessment a day earlier — which he also shared with Clinton — that the attacks were a reaction to a US video that defamed the Prophet Muhammad.

How does receiving an email "two days after four Americans were killed" constitute a "warning"?



The home schooled extremist rightwingers should ask for their money back.

Completely off the subject of the OP, which went down like the Titanic, let me offer you this from the article:

Clinton’s early statements mentioned the “inflammatory” video but said there was no justification for the attack. It wasn’t until Sept. 21 that Clinton referred to the Benghazi deaths as a “terrorist attack.”

The article actually says two days. If you look at the protests over the video there was one on 9/11 in Egypt and the attack on the embassy. Most occurred after Obama, Rice and Mrs. Clinton made their very unfounded claims. Look at facts. There were no protests before 9/11 of that year. It was the anniversary of 9/11. Without the time for one shred of evidence either way all of the administration got behind the protest BS. Even though their were live feeds of the compound, not to the Whitehouse as they claim. So pretty soon after they should have known, and did, and lied as has been repeatedly shown. There was and election to be won at the point what difference did it make?

Completely off the subject of the OP

Ironic since YOU were the one who brought it up!

And your feeble attempt at backpedaling doesn't alter the fact that you failed to read your own link that made you look foolish.

And that is your problem, not mine.

Now I suggest you take your own advice and return to the OP topic before you embarrass yourself any further.

Disregarding your attempt to reinvent what was actually posted. Mrs. Clinton was informed and went on for at least 9 days with the same lie. Mock me, insult me, deflect all you want but the truth is they all lied. What we all should be asking is why did they lie. Was it just to win an election, or to cover gun running to the Libyan rebels which cost Steven's his life?

Your own link has exposed your basic lack of honesty and integrity.

A normal person would have admitted that the link proved them wrong.

That you are incapable of admitting to being wrong makes you worse than those you seek to denigrate.

But that is your problem, not mine.

Excellent IRONY right here.... almost textbook!

 

[Mertex]

What exact crime did he commit? It says he was pretending, is that against the law? Obama, Susan Rice and Mrs. Clinton could be accused of actually lighting the fire of unrest when they lied about a video.

I guess Faux News doesn't keep it's viewers updated.


Uh-oh. The New York Times reported today that, Ahmed Abu Khattala, a suspected attacker of the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, “told other Libyans” that the attack was instigated by the infamous anti-Islam video, Innocence of Muslims, originally posted on YouTube. If true, this would confirm the administration’s early suspicions that the attack occurred in response to the video — a suspicion that was initially detailed in a CIA memo.
Benghazi Suspect Says Attacks Were Instigated by Anti-Islam Internet Video - The Daily Banter

How convenient. I have no doubt you believe Muslim extremists. It wasn't a protest it was an attack, you do know the difference?

Hillary got warning Benghazi attack was premeditated terrorism

Sidney Blumenthal, Clinton’s longtime trusted friend and former campaign adviser, sent an intelligence assessment to the secretary of state’s personal account on Sept. 13, 2012 — two days after four Americans were killed at the Benghazi outpost.

Citing sensitive sources, Blumenthal wrote Clinton that the attacks “had been planned for approximately one month” and carried out by “well-trained, hardened killers” from Ansar al-Sharia, the Libyan terrorist group.

The emails, obtained by The New York Times, says the attackers wanted to use protests as cover for the siege. This was a change from his sources’ assessment a day earlier — which he also shared with Clinton — that the attacks were a reaction to a US video that defamed the Prophet Muhammad.

How does receiving an email "two days after four Americans were killed" constitute a "warning"?



The home schooled extremist rightwingers should ask for their money back.

Completely off the subject of the OP, which went down like the Titanic, let me offer you this from the article:

Clinton’s early statements mentioned the “inflammatory” video but said there was no justification for the attack. It wasn’t until Sept. 21 that Clinton referred to the Benghazi deaths as a “terrorist attack.”

The article actually says two days. If you look at the protests over the video there was one on 9/11 in Egypt and the attack on the embassy. Most occurred after Obama, Rice and Mrs. Clinton made their very unfounded claims. Look at facts. There were no protests before 9/11 of that year. It was the anniversary of 9/11. Without the time for one shred of evidence either way all of the administration got behind the protest BS. Even though their were live feeds of the compound, not to the Whitehouse as they claim. So pretty soon after they should have known, and did, and lied as has been repeatedly shown. There was and election to be won at the point what difference did it make?

That you are still whining about this after even Republican committees have deigned it not the fault of the Obama Administration or the State Department just shows that like most conservatives, you hang on to a "bone" even when there is nothing on the bone. The Muslim extremists that caused it do know more about the reason than you and the rest of the psuedo committees that continue to form up and continue to come up empty-handed.

Even if at the time the reporting was being done it was just speculation that it was a video that caused the attack, the CIA was dictating what needed to be reported. Rice reported what she was told to report, and now, it may be that she was right even though it wasn't confirmed at the time.......and all your twisting and turning regarding what was reported doesn't change the outcome nor the fact that it wasn't due to Hillary's negligence. If anything, Republicans have to take responsibility for fighting against raising the funding for more security....but being the irresponsible people that you all are, you'll just keep whining about the fact that a video was blamed......as if more accurate reporting would have changed anything.

 

[g5000]

Here is an example of Joshua Goldberg as a "source" for Breitbart:

Shaun King Supporters Cook Up New Conspiracy Theory

You should read your own link:

Today, a new conspiracy theory emerged from progressive campaigners, who accuse Breitbart of using Joshua Goldberg, a white supremacist ISIS-impersonating troll, as a source for our story. They point to emails between me and Goldberg, who was just arrested for domestic terrorism.

They say, wrongly, that our source for the Shaun King story was Goldberg, and that this throws doubt on our conclusions. Their claims are preposterous.

Like most well-known journalists I receive hundreds – on some days, thousands – of emails a day from sources, readers, fans and other strangers. I received one such email from a person called Joshua Goldberg who had a long history of provocative, thought-provoking columns on Thought Catalog. I had no reason at the time to think anything was amiss.

 

[g5000]

A sample of Goldberg's right wing rants: What Kind Of White Supremacist Patriarchy Would Allow Bahar Mustafa To Keep Her Job?

For decades, we have heard Marxist drones and feminist cows like Mustafa moo endlessly about how we live in a white male patriarchy where minorities and women are denied a voice. With the entirety of the media and the government very much backing them, we have heard them talk about how anyone who isn’t a white “cishet” male is terribly oppressed in the West, is afforded absolutely no opportunity to make their voice heard, and is turned down from all jobs that they apply for.

Kosh, is that you?

 

[Statistikhengst]

Here is an example of Joshua Goldberg as a "source" for Breitbart:

Shaun King Supporters Cook Up New Conspiracy Theory

You should read your own link:

Today, a new conspiracy theory emerged from progressive campaigners, who accuse Breitbart of using Joshua Goldberg, a white supremacist ISIS-impersonating troll, as a source for our story. They point to emails between me and Goldberg, who was just arrested for domestic terrorism.

They say, wrongly, that our source for the Shaun King story was Goldberg, and that this throws doubt on our conclusions. Their claims are preposterous.

Like most well-known journalists I receive hundreds – on some days, thousands – of emails a day from sources, readers, fans and other strangers. I received one such email from a person called Joshua Goldberg who had a long history of provocative, thought-provoking columns on Thought Catalog. I had no reason at the time to think anything was amiss.

I read it. There is more to the story than just Breitbart's denunciation.

 

[Freewill]

Here is an example of Joshua Goldberg as a "source" for Breitbart:

Shaun King Supporters Cook Up New Conspiracy Theory

You should read your own link:

Today, a new conspiracy theory emerged from progressive campaigners, who accuse Breitbart of using Joshua Goldberg, a white supremacist ISIS-impersonating troll, as a source for our story. They point to emails between me and Goldberg, who was just arrested for domestic terrorism.

They say, wrongly, that our source for the Shaun King story was Goldberg, and that this throws doubt on our conclusions. Their claims are preposterous.

Like most well-known journalists I receive hundreds – on some days, thousands – of emails a day from sources, readers, fans and other strangers. I received one such email from a person called Joshua Goldberg who had a long history of provocative, thought-provoking columns on Thought Catalog. I had no reason at the time to think anything was amiss.

I read it. There is more to the story than just Breitbart's denunciation.

And only you and the shadow know...whooooooooooo

 

[Freewill]

What exact crime did he commit? It says he was pretending, is that against the law? Obama, Susan Rice and Mrs. Clinton could be accused of actually lighting the fire of unrest when they lied about a video.

I guess Faux News doesn't keep it's viewers updated.


Uh-oh. The New York Times reported today that, Ahmed Abu Khattala, a suspected attacker of the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, “told other Libyans” that the attack was instigated by the infamous anti-Islam video, Innocence of Muslims, originally posted on YouTube. If true, this would confirm the administration’s early suspicions that the attack occurred in response to the video — a suspicion that was initially detailed in a CIA memo.
Benghazi Suspect Says Attacks Were Instigated by Anti-Islam Internet Video - The Daily Banter

How convenient. I have no doubt you believe Muslim extremists. It wasn't a protest it was an attack, you do know the difference?

Hillary got warning Benghazi attack was premeditated terrorism

Sidney Blumenthal, Clinton’s longtime trusted friend and former campaign adviser, sent an intelligence assessment to the secretary of state’s personal account on Sept. 13, 2012 — two days after four Americans were killed at the Benghazi outpost.

Citing sensitive sources, Blumenthal wrote Clinton that the attacks “had been planned for approximately one month” and carried out by “well-trained, hardened killers” from Ansar al-Sharia, the Libyan terrorist group.

The emails, obtained by The New York Times, says the attackers wanted to use protests as cover for the siege. This was a change from his sources’ assessment a day earlier — which he also shared with Clinton — that the attacks were a reaction to a US video that defamed the Prophet Muhammad.

How does receiving an email "two days after four Americans were killed" constitute a "warning"?



The home schooled extremist rightwingers should ask for their money back.

Completely off the subject of the OP, which went down like the Titanic, let me offer you this from the article:

Clinton’s early statements mentioned the “inflammatory” video but said there was no justification for the attack. It wasn’t until Sept. 21 that Clinton referred to the Benghazi deaths as a “terrorist attack.”

The article actually says two days. If you look at the protests over the video there was one on 9/11 in Egypt and the attack on the embassy. Most occurred after Obama, Rice and Mrs. Clinton made their very unfounded claims. Look at facts. There were no protests before 9/11 of that year. It was the anniversary of 9/11. Without the time for one shred of evidence either way all of the administration got behind the protest BS. Even though their were live feeds of the compound, not to the Whitehouse as they claim. So pretty soon after they should have known, and did, and lied as has been repeatedly shown. There was and election to be won at the point what difference did it make?

That you are still whining about this after even Republican committees have deigned it not the fault of the Obama Administration or the State Department just shows that like most conservatives, you hang on to a "bone" even when there is nothing on the bone. The Muslim extremists that caused it do know more about the reason than you and the rest of the psuedo committees that continue to form up and continue to come up empty-handed.

Even if at the time the reporting was being done it was just speculation that it was a video that caused the attack, the CIA was dictating what needed to be reported. Rice reported what she was told to report, and now, it may be that she was right even though it wasn't confirmed at the time.......and all your twisting and turning regarding what was reported doesn't change the outcome nor the fact that it wasn't due to Hillary's negligence. If anything, Republicans have to take responsibility for fighting against raising the funding for more security....but being the irresponsible people that you all are, you'll just keep whining about the fact that a video was blamed......as if more accurate reporting would have changed anything.

I agree, Obama and Mrs Clinton were not responsible for the attack, they are not responsible for anything bad that happens, but killing a person that looks like OBL that he will take responsibility.

I don't care what the committees saying. You can think for yourself and the facts be the facts. We heard what they said and we now know what they said was simply a lie. YOU need to ask why YOU were lied to. As I think Obama said, the reason people lie is because they have something to hide.

What good did it do for Obama and company to come out and say it was over a video? What good? When the POTUS says something like that don't you think it might just piss off some of his Muslim buddies? Don't you think those words are unnecessarily inflammatory? Why didn't he say anything about the many other protests that occured later? He was running a cover story.

 

[Mertex]

I guess Faux News doesn't keep it's viewers updated.


Uh-oh. The New York Times reported today that, Ahmed Abu Khattala, a suspected attacker of the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, “told other Libyans” that the attack was instigated by the infamous anti-Islam video, Innocence of Muslims, originally posted on YouTube. If true, this would confirm the administration’s early suspicions that the attack occurred in response to the video — a suspicion that was initially detailed in a CIA memo.
Benghazi Suspect Says Attacks Were Instigated by Anti-Islam Internet Video - The Daily Banter

How convenient. I have no doubt you believe Muslim extremists. It wasn't a protest it was an attack, you do know the difference?

Hillary got warning Benghazi attack was premeditated terrorism

Sidney Blumenthal, Clinton’s longtime trusted friend and former campaign adviser, sent an intelligence assessment to the secretary of state’s personal account on Sept. 13, 2012 — two days after four Americans were killed at the Benghazi outpost.

Citing sensitive sources, Blumenthal wrote Clinton that the attacks “had been planned for approximately one month” and carried out by “well-trained, hardened killers” from Ansar al-Sharia, the Libyan terrorist group.

The emails, obtained by The New York Times, says the attackers wanted to use protests as cover for the siege. This was a change from his sources’ assessment a day earlier — which he also shared with Clinton — that the attacks were a reaction to a US video that defamed the Prophet Muhammad.

How does receiving an email "two days after four Americans were killed" constitute a "warning"?



The home schooled extremist rightwingers should ask for their money back.

Completely off the subject of the OP, which went down like the Titanic, let me offer you this from the article:

Clinton’s early statements mentioned the “inflammatory” video but said there was no justification for the attack. It wasn’t until Sept. 21 that Clinton referred to the Benghazi deaths as a “terrorist attack.”

The article actually says two days. If you look at the protests over the video there was one on 9/11 in Egypt and the attack on the embassy. Most occurred after Obama, Rice and Mrs. Clinton made their very unfounded claims. Look at facts. There were no protests before 9/11 of that year. It was the anniversary of 9/11. Without the time for one shred of evidence either way all of the administration got behind the protest BS. Even though their were live feeds of the compound, not to the Whitehouse as they claim. So pretty soon after they should have known, and did, and lied as has been repeatedly shown. There was and election to be won at the point what difference did it make?

That you are still whining about this after even Republican committees have deigned it not the fault of the Obama Administration or the State Department just shows that like most conservatives, you hang on to a "bone" even when there is nothing on the bone. The Muslim extremists that caused it do know more about the reason than you and the rest of the psuedo committees that continue to form up and continue to come up empty-handed.

Even if at the time the reporting was being done it was just speculation that it was a video that caused the attack, the CIA was dictating what needed to be reported. Rice reported what she was told to report, and now, it may be that she was right even though it wasn't confirmed at the time.......and all your twisting and turning regarding what was reported doesn't change the outcome nor the fact that it wasn't due to Hillary's negligence. If anything, Republicans have to take responsibility for fighting against raising the funding for more security....but being the irresponsible people that you all are, you'll just keep whining about the fact that a video was blamed......as if more accurate reporting would have changed anything.

I agree, Obama and Mrs Clinton were not responsible for the attack, they are not responsible for anything bad that happens, but killing a person that looks like OBL that he will take responsibility.

Oh, you are just being melodramatic.....because you know you have nothing. And you are right, Obama and Hillary were not responsible for what happened in Benghazi. Conservatives seem to ignore the fact that over 3000 Americans died on account of Bush/Rice not doing their job on 9/11, and are just trying to come up with something that you think is similar that you can pin on the Democrats and you are so pathetically remiss. Why aren't you all trying to investigate Bush's negligence over 3000 people dying but making such a big deal over 4 people dying?

I don't care what the committees saying. You can think for yourself and the facts be the facts. We heard what they said and we now know what they said was simply a lie. YOU need to ask why YOU were lied to. As I think Obama said, the reason people lie is because they have something to hide.

I know you don't care what any of the committees say, even though they are from your own party, because they aren't saying what you want them to say. You can think all you want, but you don't have access to all the information that these committees have, neither do any of you have the expertise, but you all want something to cling on to blame Obama and Hillary because you can't stand that your party's president was such a fuck up.

What good did it do for Obama and company to come out and say it was over a video? What good? When the POTUS says something like that don't you think it might just piss off some of his Muslim buddies? Don't you think those words are unnecessarily inflammatory? Why didn't he say anything about the many other protests that occured later? He was running a cover story.

They said it was over a video because that was what the CIA wanted them to say. It is obvious to anyone with a brain that the CIA knew that people wanted to know what happened, and they didn't really have concrete information and it seem logical that the video that had caused so much upheaval in Egypt could have been the cause, too. But why don't you answer the question you ask....what damn difference does it make what the cause of it was? How the hell do you know what angers the Muslims? You and other conservatives don't see to give a damn about insulting them, which most definitely must anger them, so why use that as an excuse for your continued whining about Benghazi and the fact that the reporting may or may not have been accurate?

The fact is that you have nothing, your own party's committees have come up empty handed and you're still whining over what they said was the cause when it has been rehashed over and over...it is no longer even relevant.