Congratulations to Hillary Clinton!

[Valerie]

Nov 18, 2012


An open challenge



QUOTE="Valerie, post: 6365552, member: 11971"

That's why this whole frenzy over these word semantics is so stupid, because the event just was what it was...The murder of Americans and the destruction of our embassy...It never mattered what to call it until partisans pounced and acted as if it mattered, the very next day no less...

There was no lie about the results of the violence that occurred that day..it was an active investigation of a violent crime scene, an unfolding news story where information was being spread and repeated very quickly, information got mixed up from violent events across the globe at other embassies that day where outrage was being expressed toward the US in general, obviously because it was the anniversary of 9/11 which is obviously about more than just some video...and yes there were reports of spontaneous uprisings over some video including in Libya and the president spoke of them too, why shouldn't he?


It's not like anyone really believes blood thirsty jihadist wouldn't find any other excuse to focus their rage anyway, but that video and others like it are true precipitating factors to terror and we are currently in the midst of a diplomatic effort over there, so we simply acknowledge that fact as we gathered other facts and reacted to the events in whole. Not because we wanted to pretend to the terrorists we weren't "on to them". They blew up our effing embassy and killed our guys it was pretty obvious we were going to be all over them henceforth regardless.

Despite all the partisan parsing, the President and the Secretary of State both made strong, honest and diplomatic statements in the days following this terror event. No one claimed it wasn't terror.


When people like QW ask why did they do it that way, why did they lie? I say, I don't see it that way at all, and I don't accept your premise that there was a lie...[/QUOTE]

 

[TemplarKormac]

GOP Intel Report Debunks Its Own Party's Nutty Benghazi Theories

GOP Intel Report Debunks Its Own Party's Nutty Benghazi Theories




So Hillary-Deranged Wingers, How'd You Do For Your Twenty Million Dollars?

can I break up the left wing Hillary circle jerk to ask a question about Benghazi?

4 Americans are killed in Benghazi, and all Hillary thinks to do is e-mail her kid

Benghazi is a witch hunt

The Benghazi Timeline

Release The Transcripts of Sidney Blumenthal

What Has Hillary Done For You?

Mitt Romney is a toad

An open challenge





feel free to take off your confirmation bias goggles and do some reading of the actual quotes and events ^ as opposed to blindly accepting the various biased interpretations and mischaracterizations of what was supposedly said at the time.

Lol. You must think we're stupid. Quoting those overtly liberal sources along with your own posts in no way debunks anything. Like I said earlier, you're a textbook case of confirmation bias.

Only you would use your own posts to attempt to confirm an otherwise invalid assertion you make on another thread.

You're not fooling anyone.

 

[Valerie]

^ there are various links and sources therein...

of course you won't bother to read for comprehension because facts don't suit your biased agenda...

oh well.

 

[TemplarKormac]

^ there are various links and sources therein...

of course you won't bother to read for comprehension because facts don't suit your biased agenda...

oh well.

When you're doing nothing but projecting your own bias onto us, I wonder why I don't read your links?

 

[Valerie]

no, i payed attention to the spin on this from day one...

the GOP has been a disgrace and their talking points are the lies...

 

[Valerie]

i took the time to retrieve all those links but you can't take the time to produce one direct quote to prove your claim.

 

[Care4all]

no, i payed attention to the spin on this from day one...

the GOP has been a disgrace and their talking points are the lies...

yep! here are just a few of the things they lied about and the House intelligence committee had to correct...
Fact Sheet - House Intelligence Committee’s Benghazi Report | The Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence

December 4, 2014 Contact: Susan Phalen
[email protected]


Fact Sheet


House Intelligence Committee’s Benghazi Report


Certain press articles about the House Intelligence Committee’s Report on Benghazi do not accurately represent the Committee’s Report or take into account the full scope of the evidence the Committee received. Statements by individual eyewitnesses, in particular former security contractors who were in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11-12, 2012, do not present the complete picture of what happened that night. The Committee’s Report is based on the totality of the evidence it received and all the testimony of witnesses taken under oath and on the record. The facts described in the Report comport with the findings of other committees in Congress, including the Senate Intelligence Committee, the House Foreign Affairs Committee, the House Armed Services Committee. The Committee stands by its final bipartisan Report that was formally adopted by a voice vote of Committee members.


· The former security contractors who are telling their version of events in the media do not represent the totality of the two CIA rescue teams. Some individuals remain unnamed. Some security officers continue to serve the CIA in dangerous places around the world, and thus cannot disclose their testimony publicly.


· The totality of the evidence indicates that the CIA team departed for the State Department facility 21 minutes after first learning of the attack at 9:42 pm. While Mr. Paronto testified that he believed the call came earlier, the totality of evidence, which includes other eyewitness testimony, FBI reports from the initial eyewitness interviews, time-stamped video footage, and CIA emails and cables, shows that the notification came at 9:42 pm.


· It was a tactical decision of the leadership on the ground to attempt to gather more information about the attack at the TMF before authorizing the team’s departure. There is no evidence to suggest that, absent the delay, the team could have saved Ambassador Stevens and Sean Smith.


o The CIA Security Chief led and participated in the rescue mission with the other officers. The Team Leader’s presence in the car supports the conclusion that the security team did not depart without authorization or contrary to orders.


o The Chief of Base and the CIA Security Chief were in charge and made sound decisions to let the team depart after gathering more facts and trying to raise additional and more heavily armed friendly militias to assist the team.


o This was not a standard military rescue operation. The CIA was not responsible for the security of the State Department Temporary Mission Facility, and the Chief of Base and CIA Security Chief had to consider other factors, including the safety of the remaining CIA personnel under their command at the Annex.


· The Committee did not receive any evidence that individuals in Washington, Tripoli, or elsewhere influenced the decision of the Chief of Base or the CIA Security Chief about when and whether to allow the security team to head to the TMF.


· The Report described information from testimony and briefings from Ambassador Kennedy and NCTC Director Olsen that the Diplomatic Security officer repeatedly entered the smoke-filled building to search for Ambassador Stevens. Their testimony was based on available evidence, including time-stamped video footage. The Committee did not interview the Department of State officer, but our report is consistent with reports from the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the Interim Joint House Committee report on the Benghazi attacks. The security contractors were not at the Temporary Mission Facility at the time of this event.


· The Committee did not downplay the ferocity of the terrorist attacks at the Annex that night. The CIA security team and their DoD colleagues professionally defended the facility with great skill and honor.


· The Tripoli team assisted in the defense of the Annex that night. Glen Doherty was a member of the Tripoli Team. Some press articles seem to draw a divide between officers defending from the rooftops and the other officers protecting the Annex. The rooftop positions were not the only defensive positions at the Annex that night.


· The mortar fire that hit the roof of the CIA Annex was the deadly portion of the attack, but it was not the only component. Terrorists attacked with RPGs and smalls arms fire and attempted to breach the Annex. The security teams successfully defended against the assault despite the devastating mortar effects to those officers on the rooftops. Time-stamped video evidence conclusively shows that the Libyan Shield militia left the CIA Annex before the mortar fire began.


· Eyewitness testimony was consistently critical of the conduct of all but one of the Diplomatic Security agents. The Report accurately reflects the testimony the Committee received.


· As the Report indicated, the Department of Defense directed a Predator drone to Benghazi well before one security contractor said he requested it. The CIA security officers in Benghazi should have known that no close air support was available because that information was widely disseminated via cable traffic. The assertions by some contractors about the availability of air support are not representative of the totality of eyewitness testimony and indicate that some may not remember the read-outs of the Emergency Action Committee meetings or the official cable traffic from CIA on the security for the CIA Annex. Further, the House Armed Services Committee (HASC) exhaustively investigated the military posture during the attacks and their response to the attacks in Benghazi. The HASC accounted for all Spectre gunships in the U.S. inventory, and the HASC report speaks for itself.


· There is no evidence showing that the CIA intimidated or prevented any officer from speaking to the Congress or telling his story. All officers testified to the Committee that they were not intimidated. As the Committee report explained, the non-disclosure agreements specifically allow for persons to speak with the Intelligence Committees and outline the requirements for pre-publication review. Further, both the House and Senate Intelligence Committees are aware of the Tripoli officer’s complaint to the CIA Inspector General, the IG’s actions in that regard, and have documentation related to that claim. That correspondence is, however, protected by law from disclosure.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Example, in your first link,

GOP Intel Report Debunks Its Own Party's Nutty Benghazi Theories

the title uses "Nutty" to describe the GOP's theory on Benghazi. That's far from objective. It's pejorative. Not going to waste my time with an article that states its own conclusion in the very title.

I'll quote your posts in the other links you provided:

in the immediate aftermath of a crime scene, everyone knows the smartest thing to do is to spill the beans on all the intel right away!

What does this prove?

she specifically stated the video played no role in the attack?

I'm sure liberals will have logical explanation.

do you have a logical explanation for the fact there is no quote where she said it PLAYED NO ROLE ?

where is the LOGIC in claiming she specifically stated something that she did not?

You obviously weren't paying attention. You can't use logic to explain away the truth:

Obviously it's the email of a heartless monster who killed the ambassador herself !

and did you notice how she said there were only 2 people killed and then <gasp!> come to find out later on there were really 4 people killed so she LIED and tried to COVER it up!

How does sarcasm make your case? Why are you linking to your own posts?

Clinton noted that this is the eighth such committee to investigate the Benghazi attacks.

“They’ve all looked into this and basically just rejected the conspiracy theories that are still floating in some circles,” Clinton said. “I will do my very best to answer their questions but I don’t really know what their objective is right now.”

Hillary Clinton dismisses Benghazi ‘conspiracy theories’ ahead of her testimony

Clinton is far from being a reliable source of honesty. It's pathetic to consider her such.

"Hillary said it, therefore it must be true, the facts be damned!"

here's a quote from a well known usmb righty in that thread, the day after the attacks:

Even the State Department is now admitting that this was a planned and orchestrated attack. Random mob reaction doesn't include rocket and grenade launchers and it would be a coincidence beyond all reason that it would occur on 9/11 and include chants of "Obama, Obama, we ALL are Osama" and such as that.

benghazi was OBVIOUSLY ''a terrorist attack''.. ^ DUH

^ a week later the GOP completely fabricated a ''cover-up" talking point that has lasted 3 years now...

This is getting ridiculous.

Time and time again, Republicans returned to Hillary Clinton’s relationship with Blumenthal, who has never been in Libya nor served in Clinton’s Department of State. On numerous times they brought up the emails that he sent her, the influence of his advice, where his missives were passed along and whether his communications were truly unsolicited.


Clinton explained that much of the business she did as secretary of state did not take place over email, and her personal contact with Blumenthal did not reflect the work she was doing there. Republicans have used Blumenthal's emails to Clinton's private email -- which were first revealed by a hacker -- to build attention around the fact that she used a private email server to conduct her work at the State Department.



Democrats on the committee turned the Republicans’ obsession with Blumenthal back on them, pointing out that the GOP-led committee had yet to make public Blumenthal’s testimony from his deposition in front of the committee and even called a vote to release it.


“Let the world see it. What do you have to hide,” Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD), the ranking member, roared in a heated exchange with Gowdy that capped off the first round of questions.


Why Were The Benghazi Republicans Obsessed With Sidney Blumenthal?

"Republicans asked more than 160 questions about Mr. Blumenthal's relationship and communications with the Clintons, but less than 20 questions about the Benghazi attacks. Republicans asked more than 50 questions about the Clinton foundation but only four questions about security in Benghazi. Republicans asked more than 270 questions about Mr. Blumenthal's alleged business activities in Libya, but no questions about the U.S. presence in Benghazi. And Republicans asked more than 45 questions about David Brock, Media Matters -- I have no idea what that is even -- and affiliated entities, but no questions, no questions about Ambassador Stevens and other U.S. personnel in Benghazi."

I would be concerned too if someone outside the government is advising the secretary of state on foreign affairs. Moving on.

Quote of the Day: Republican Admits Benghazi ‘Scandal’ Was Orchestrated to Take Down Hillary

Quote of the Day: Republican Admits Benghazi 'Scandal' Was Orchestrated to Take Down Hillary - The Daily Banter

Hate to break it to you, but she's doing that all on her own. But how does this prove she didn't lie about the video?

Ravi, congradulations. Truthmatters, Chris, RDean... and now Ravi. You've made it... did you tear out and throw away your critical thinking, or does the DNC now do thinkectomies as well as late term abortions? Check with Sandra Fluke, I think that they can get that as a covered procedure under Obamacare.

Mitt Romney looks ten times more Presidential than Barry ever has or will. Every American, and believe it or not that includes Mitt Romney, has the right to say what ever they want to, even when it's about events that are unfolding. I'm kind of shaky on the details here, but I think it's in the FIRST AMENDMENT (I know you lefties believe it only protects speech you like). Just like the guy in California has the RIGHT to make the film depicting Mohammed as the idiot he really is.

I rarely look at threads started by dink (you DO know what a dink is?) political hacks... Now I get to add your name to the list.

No, Mitt was wrong to immediately politicize the embassy response before the deaths could even be announced...

Romney’s remarks came before the White House confirmed Wednesday morning that U.S. ambassador to Libya, John Christopher Stevens, was among those killed in the Benghazi attack.

Romney foreign policy adviser Rich Williamson told Foreign Policy magazine Tuesday evening, before the deaths were reported, that the attacks were related to Obama’s “failure to be an effective leader for U.S. interests in the Middle East.”

Romney has often tried to sharpen the contrast between his foreign policy and Obama’s by arguing that the president is apologetic towards America’s enemies.




Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt responded a few hours later that it was Romney who was out of line. “We are shocked that, at a time when the United States of America is confronting the tragic death of one of our diplomatic officers in Libya, Governor Romney would choose to launch a political attack,” he said.

Romney calls Obama administration response to Libya attacks &#8216;disgraceful&#8217;

Below is a statement released by the State Department from Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton on the killing of U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans in Benghazi, Libya.



Yesterday, our U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya was attacked. Heavily armed militants assaulted the compound and set fire to our buildings. American and Libyan security personnel battled the attackers together. Four Americans were killed. They included Sean Smith, a Foreign Service information management officer, and our Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens. We are still making next of kin notifications for the other two individuals.

This is an attack that should shock the conscience of people of all faiths around the world. We condemn in the strongest terms this senseless act of violence, and we send our prayers to the families, friends, and colleagues of those we’ve lost.

All over the world, every day, America’s diplomats and development experts risk their lives in the service of our country and our values, because they believe that the United States must be a force for peace and progress in the world, that these aspirations are worth striving and sacrificing for. Alongside our men and women in uniform, they represent the best traditions of a bold and generous nation.

In the lobby of this building, the State Department, the names of those who have fallen in the line of duty are inscribed in marble. Our hearts break over each one. And now, because of this tragedy, we have new heroes to honor and more friends to mourn.

Chris Stevens fell in love with the Middle East as a young Peace Corps volunteer teaching English in Morocco. He joined the Foreign Service, learned languages, won friends for America in distant places, and made other people’s hopes his own.

In the early days of the Libyan revolution, I asked Chris to be our envoy to the rebel opposition. He arrived on a cargo ship in the port of Benghazi and began building our relationships with Libya’s revolutionaries. He risked his life to stop a tyrant, than gave his life trying to help build a better Libya. The world needs more Chris Stevenses. I spoke with his sister, Ann, this morning, and told her that he will be remembered as a hero by many nations.

Hillary Clinton's Statement on the Attack in Libya - NationalJournal.com

And I wonder what Mitt Romney has to do with this? How does this prove that Hillary didn't lie?

You don't see how it is politically advantageous to downplay the event especially a month before an election on the cusp of the debates to boot, not calling it a Terrorist act?

so let me reverse this; what harm would have been had he called it a terrorist attack as to any 'investigation; etc etc....your position can't be that in a place with a huge CIA footprint that the T's in Libya who carried this out would believe that not hearing it called a terrorist act would provide them some relief, as if they got away with it? These folks may be extremists bit they are not stupid, clearly.

That's why this whole frenzy over these word semantics is so stupid, because the event just was what it was...The murder of Americans and the destruction of our embassy...It never mattered what to call it until partisans pounced and acted as if it mattered, the very next day no less...

There was no lie about the results of the violence that occurred that day..it was an active investigation of a violent crime scene, an unfolding news story where information was being spread and repeated very quickly, information got mixed up from violent events across the globe at other embassies that day where outrage was being expressed toward the US in general, obviously because it was the anniversary of 9/11 which is obviously about more than just some video...and yes there were reports of spontaneous uprisings over some video including in Libya and the president spoke of them too, why shouldn't he?


It's not like anyone really believes blood thirsty jihadist wouldn't find any other excuse to focus their rage anyway, but that video and others like it are true precipitating factors to terror and we are currently in the midst of a diplomatic effort over there, so we simply acknowledge that fact as we gathered other facts and reacted to the events in whole. Not because we wanted to pretend to the terrorists we weren't "on to them". They blew up our effing embassy and killed our guys it was pretty obvious we were going to be all over them henceforth regardless.

Despite all the partisan parsing, the President and the Secretary of State both made strong, honest and diplomatic statements in the days following this terror event. No one claimed it wasn't terror.


When people like QW ask why did they do it that way, why did they lie? I say, I don't see it that way at all, and I don't accept your premise that there was a lie...

People like me?

Tell me something, if they admitted it was terrorism from the beginning why did Rice go on the Sunday morning talk shows and make the point that it wasn't?

You can not show any lie where any official claimed it was not an act of terror. Claiming that an event was related to something or perhaps precipitated by something, does not mean the event is not also characterized, or characterizable, as an act of terror at the same time. Go ahead and post the big lie where anyone claimed it was not an act of terror.


I said "people like you" because you are the OP.

And this is simply a restatement of your argument here. Not even proof.

Congratulations, you're guilty of confirmation bias.

 

[Clementine]

Actually two revelations came to light.

1) She told the Egyptians hours after the attack that it was terrorism, she told Chelsea that it "was done by an Al-Qaeda like group, but then spent the next few days, including the casket ceremony of the four dead men blaming the attacks on a video.

2) The consulate sent 600 separate requests to the State Department for extra security, and none of them ever reached Clinton's desk.

Sorry.

She was acting real cocky. She never showed remorse for the lies. Shortly after the terrorist attack, she even made one of the victim's family members feel like shit because she told the woman that she should feel bad for the misunderstood, uneducated protesters that did the killing. That is when she was still lying about the attack being carried out by protesters. She told family members that she would get the filmmaker responsible, as if he bore sole responsibility.

The way she was smiling and high-fiving people after her lying to the committee, it's clear she doesn't feel bad about what she did.

 

[Care4all]

gawd almighty, there were not any lies...

the lies are coming from your rightwing spinmeisters...sheesh...

and you all foolishly and blindly believe every word your bloggers and right wing media tell you....

holy moly! you guys are living in your own created fantasy world....!!! WOW!!!

House Intelligence Committee investigation debunks many Benghazi theories



BY Ken Dilanian, Associated Press November 21, 2014 at 6:22 PM EDT
.....

Debunking a series of persistent allegations hinting at dark conspiracies, the investigation of the politically charged incident determined that there was no intelligence failure, no delay in sending a CIA rescue team, no missed opportunity for a military rescue, and no evidence the CIA was covertly shipping arms from Libya to Syria.


In the immediate aftermath of the attack, intelligence about who carried it out and why was contradictory, the report found. That led Susan Rice, then U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, to inaccurately assert that the attack had evolved from a protest, when in fact there had been no protest. But it was intelligence analysts, not political appointees, who made the wrong call, the committee found.

The report did not conclude that Rice or any other government official acted in bad faith or intentionally misled the American people.


The House Intelligence Committee report was released with little fanfare on the Friday before Thanksgiving week. Many of its findings echo those of six previous investigations by various congressional committees and a State Department panel.

In the aftermath of the attacks, Republicans criticized the Obama administration and its then-secretary of state, Hillary Rodham Clinton, who is expected to run for president in 2016. People in and out of government have alleged that a CIA response team was ordered to “stand down” after the State Department compound came under attack, that a military rescue was nixed, that officials intentionally downplayed the role of al-Qaida figures in the attack, and that Stevens and the CIA were involved in a secret operation to spirit weapons out of Libya and into the hands of Syrian rebels.

None of that is true, according to the House Intelligence Committee report.

Some of the harshest charges have been leveled at Rice, now Obama’s national security adviser, who represented the Obama administration on Sunday talk shows the weekend after the attack. Rice repeated talking points that wrongly described a protest over a video deemed offensive to Muslims.


But Rice’s comments were based on faulty intelligence from multiple agencies, according to the report. Analysts received 21 reports that a protest occurred in Benghazi, the report said —14 from the Open Source Center, which reviews news reports; one from the CIA; two from the Defense Department; and four from the National Security Agency.


In the years since, some participants in the attack have said they were motivated by the video. The attackers were a mix of extremists and hangers on, the investigation found.

read more at link: House Intelligence Committee investigation debunks many Benghazi theories

go ahead right wingers, IGNORE THE TRUTH, one more time.... shakes head in disbelief of this ostrich head in sand syndrone by the right wing...

I'm sorry your beloved media LIED TO YOU and I'm sorry you were foolish enough to believe them.... sad really....

 

[Vigilante]

The willful excuses of the left are beyond logical!

 

[Ame®icano]

So because she confidently faced questioning that shows she is a liar, she is presidential? That makes no sense

In leftards heads it does makes sense. More you lie, more presidential you look. It worked for boy king, twice.

 

[Ame®icano]

So because she confidently faced questioning that shows she is a liar, she is presidential? That makes no sense

you're wrong. there was no lie. the talking points that are claiming that she lied are the lie.

you are seeing something that isn't there. it's called confirmation bias.


In psychology and cognitive science, confirmation bias (or confirmatory bias) is a tendency to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions, leading to statistical errors.
Confirmation bias - Science Daily

Ahh, but you can't prove there was no lie. You are given to ad hominem instead.

you claim there is a lie, the burden is on you to show an actual lie, not a twisted interpretations of facts to suit your agenda.

Why Did You Tell Egyptians Benghazi Was a Terrorist Attack But Not The American People?

 

[rightwinger]

Hillary stood on point for a full 11 hour interview by the Benghazi committee, being the only witness being questioned. She stood calm, confident, and professional the entire time.

Nothing new came up at all in the Benghazi committee, lots of political theatre and partisan showdowns, but really there isn't anything that I'm aware of that could be used in this interview that could put Clinton into the negative.

I have to say that was quite an endurance test and Hillary came through on top. Congratulations on her well deserved win.

The reatest endurance test I could tell is the chair standing up to that fat ass being on it for 11 hours.

"old lady" Hillary stood up to the GOP tag team for 11 hours and came out without a scratch

 

[Wildman]

She stood calm, confident, and professional the entire time.

that is exactly what a robot is programed to do.

 

[Care4all]

So because she confidently faced questioning that shows she is a liar, she is presidential? That makes no sense

you're wrong. there was no lie. the talking points that are claiming that she lied are the lie.

you are seeing something that isn't there. it's called confirmation bias.


In psychology and cognitive science, confirmation bias (or confirmatory bias) is a tendency to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions, leading to statistical errors.
Confirmation bias - Science Daily

Ahh, but you can't prove there was no lie. You are given to ad hominem instead.

you claim there is a lie, the burden is on you to show an actual lie, not a twisted interpretations of facts to suit your agenda.

Why Did You Tell Egyptians Benghazi Was a Terrorist Attack But Not The American People?

The answer was given in this hearing and All of the 7 other Benghazi hearings, an al-Qaeda wanna be terrorist group had taken credit for the attack, at the same time 21 intelligence reports came in stating that it was the video protest that initiated the attacks....

Then the following morning or the morning after that, the wannabe al-Qaeda terrorist group reneged, retracted their statement of responsibility.

When Hillary spoke to Lybian and Egyption presidents, and Chelsea, the terrorist group taking responsibility had not yet retracted their responsibility. The intelligence and situation was fluid, coming in by the minute.

READ THE DARN BENGHAZI INVESTIGATIVE REPORTS or at least their summaries for goodness sakes, INFORM yourselves....stop being the PAWNS for the meme machine of propaganda.

And to steal from Hillary

What difference does it make to you and me, to have a one week delay on their confirmation of a terrorist group being involved????? Why is this even important???

Could US knowing one week earlier have saved 1 single life?

No!

 

[Care4all]

Willful ignorance, closing eyes when reading, plugging ears......when listening, are ALL the same thing ya know......

 

[konradv]

Congratulations on an SNL tour de force.

 

[Valerie]

^ hillary with val!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Hillary stood on point for a full 11 hour interview by the Benghazi committee, being the only witness being questioned. She stood calm, confident, and professional the entire time.

Nothing new came up at all in the Benghazi committee, lots of political theatre and partisan showdowns, but really there isn't anything that I'm aware of that could be used in this interview that could put Clinton into the negative.

I have to say that was quite an endurance test and Hillary came through on top. Congratulations on her well deserved win.

We know for certain that Hillary helped Obama cover up that Benghazi was a terrorist attack