They've found no evidence of it because they either aren't looking or they refuse to release the evidence that proves it.
After EIGHT hearings, if no one's found any evidence, it's because it doesn't exist.
Do you really think your wingnut heroes would let her skate through this and possibly get elected President?
Mudwhistle, accept that the Congressional wingnuts were on a witch hunt and they faceplanted.
Accept that Hillary did nothing criminal re: Benghazi.
Accept that you were hoodwinked by the Far Right leadership.
I guess you didn't pay attention to the hearings.
You keep repeating this false narrative that they didn't find any evidence. They pointed out that Hillary knew it wasn't a protest because her own emails to everyone showed she didn't believe it was a protest. Also, do you really believe that 600 requests for increased security never reached Hillary?
Either she's lying or she's totally incompetent....take your pick.
October 25, 2015
Hillary covered up a terror attack, Nixon a burglary
By
Yossi Gestetner
Thursday was the first time that the public saw email evidence of Hillary Clinton partaking in a cover-up of a terror attack as the attack took place. An attack that killed a U.S. ambassador. Context? Nixon covered up a burglary where no one died.
Hillary's emails from 9/11/12 show that she knew that an al-Qaeda-type group executed a terror attack, but as early as 9/11/12 10:10 PM Eastern Time (when the attack was still ongoing), Hillary released a public statement talking more about a video and respect for religion than talking about the attack itself. Hillary then tried deleting evidence of this cover-up, which is why the Benghazi Committee's life is so long: they were waiting months to get relevant emails.
The other thing revealed for the public Thursday is the fact that paid Clinton hack Sidney Blumenthal, with business interests in Libya, had more back-and-forth Libya access to and from Hillary than did her hand-picked ambassador in Libya. This shows a shocking level of incompetence or negligence on Hillary's part. (Washington Post Fact Checker Glenn Kessler tried minimizing this by saying that ambassadors usually don't have email access to the SoS. Well, most U.S. ambassadors are not stuck in newly created hell-holes like Libya, as Stevens was at the time.)
The left is pointing out that Hillary "performed well," as if most witnesses in front of congressional hearings break down crying or run on stage – as Matt Taibbi credits Hillary for not doing. Besides, last time around, when Hillary did lose it ("what difference at this point does it make"), the left praised that, too, saying it showed she had the energy to be president. This time Hillary is praised for not losing it.
The bottom line is as follows. 1) Hillary left her top envoy vulnerable to attack because she was more interested in Libya opinions from her privately paid hack than from her envoy on the ground. 2) Hillary tried covering up a terror attack as it took place – an attack that killed an ambassador. 3) Hillary then tried deleting evidence of the cover-up.
All this is without even getting to the bottom as to who in the Obama administration led this cover-up. All this is before mentioning that Hillary took credit (and was given credit) for the U.S. intervention in Libya.
Blog: Hillary covered up a terror attack, Nixon a burglary
