In one of best moments during the Wednesday debate Marco Rubio criticized the mainstream media for declaring former Secretary of State Clinton totally debunked the “charges” against her about Benghazi despite the fact that Ms. Clinton was shown to have lied about the lousy YouTube video supposedly being the cause of the attack. But the Media is pushing back.

According to the MSM it doesn’t matter that in the immediate aftermath of the attack Clinton told the leaders of Libya and Egypt, along with her daughter that the event in Benghazi was a terror attack while she told the U.S. voters and more importantly the families of the four people who were killed that it was a spontaneous riot because of a blasphemous anti-Muslim video. They contend that there was much confusion at the time and Hillary’s Benghazi lies were what she actually believed at the time.

Allow me to suggest that if any of those reporters, columnist removed their heads from the former First Lady’s pooper and research the available information they would be agreeing that a liar like Ms. Clinton has forfeited any chance if moving back to the White House.

According to congressional testimony given by former Deputy Chief of Mission in Libya Greg Hicks, he spoke to Ms. Clinton around 2 AM the evening of  the attack (from Tripoli)  he told her the embassy was under assault.  At no time did Hicks (or any one else involved) mention a protest or a YouTube video. Remember the President was still blaming well after the attack when he spoke to the UN. Months later Hicks was told not to speak to Congressman Chaffetz (R-UT) alone unless State Department attorney needed to be in the room. After Ambassador Rice gave the bull story about the video on national TV five times, Hicks called the Department to inquire why she giving that false account which lead to him being reamed out and demoted.

take our poll - story continues below

Did SCOTUS make the right decision on medical mandates for large businesses?

  • Did SCOTUS make the right decision on medical mandates for large businesses?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to The Lid updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

There are also documents proving that before the administration blamed the anti-Muslim video featuring Mohammed, they considered blaming a video created by a Pastor in Oregon (in the video he’s reading scripture.

We’ve even learned that the “official” story that the anti-Muslim video created the riot in Egypt the previous day was a lie it was an al Qaeda demonstration about releasing the “Blind Sheik.:” Andrew McCarthy recounted:

As I’ve previously recounted, “blame it on the video” was a fraud as to Egypt as well – a calculated fraud set in motion by State Department officials in Cairo who began tweeting about their outrage over the video before the rioting started. At the time they did so, our government well knew both that there would be demonstrations at the embassy and that those demonstrations were being spearheaded by al Qaeda. In addition to the general animus against the United States that is its raison d’etre, the terror network and its Egyptian confederates were animated by their long-running campaign demanding that the U.S. release the Blind Sheikh (Omar Abdel Rahman, the master jihadist I prosecuted in the nineties and who Osama bin Laden later credited with issuing the fatwa that approved the 9/11 suicide hijackings).

Testifying before the House Armed Services Committee in 2013 ,retired General Carter Ham who served as the second Commander of AFRICOM, told congress that minutes after the attack began he alerted Chairman of the Joint Chief’s, General Dempsey and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta who were on their way to a previously scheduled meeting with the President.

“My first call was to General Dempsey, General Dempsey’s office, to say, ‘Hey, I am headed down the hall. I need to see him right away,’” Ham told lawmakers on the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation on June 26 of last year. “I told him what I knew. We immediately walked upstairs to meet with Secretary Panetta.”

During the hearing Rep. Brad Wenstrup (R-OH) a first-term lawmaker with experience as an Iraq war veteran and Army reserve officer, pressed General Ham on “the nature of the conversation” he had with Panetta and Dempsey was that “this was a terrorist attack.”

Wenstrup: As a military person, I am concerned that someone in the military would be advising that this was a demonstration. I would hope that our military leadership would be advising that this was a terrorist attack.

Ham: Again, sir, I think, you know, there was some preliminary discussion about, you know, maybe there was a demonstration. But I think at the command, I personally and I think the command very quickly got to the point that this was not a demonstration, this was a terrorist attack.”

Wenstrup: And you would have advised as such if asked. Would that be correct?”

Ham: Well, and with General Dempsey and Secretary Panetta, that is the nature of the conversation we had, yes, sir.”

Further corroboration came in a then classified session on July 31 of last year, Rep. Westrup raised the question of what was the cause of the attack with Marine Corps Col. Ret. George Bristol , commander of AFRICOM’s Joint Special Operations Task Force for the Trans Sahara region.

Bristol, who was traveling in Dakar, Senegal when the attack occurred, said he received a call from the Joint Operations Center alerting him to “a considerable event unfolding in Libya.” Bristol’s next call was to Lt. Col. S.E. Gibson, an Army commander stationed in Tripoli. Gibson informed Bristol that Stevens was missing, and that “there was a fight going on” at the consulate compound.

Wenstrup: So no one from the military was ever advising, that you are aware of, that this was a demonstration gone out of control, it was always considered an attack.

Bristol: Yes, sir.

Wenstrup: — on the United States?

Bristol:  Yes, sir. … We referred to it as the attack.

And lets not forget Leon Panetta’s testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee in February 2013 that also corroborated the above. Panetta told the Committee that it was he who informed the President “there was an apparent attack going on in Benghazi.” “Secretary Panetta, do you believe that unequivocally at that time we knew that this was a terrorist attack?” asked Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla. “There was no question in my mind that this was a terrorist attack,” Panetta replied.

Two days after the attack (9/14/12) while the State Department and the CIA were bickering over the talking points for Susan Rice as she was preparing to go onto all the Sunday news shows.  Emails show that it was the State Department who objected to the CIA analysis that the attack was caused by Ansar al Sharia terrorists, and the references to an al Qaeda-linked group were removed because of pressure coming from Foggy Bottom.

The Democrats and their superPAC in the mainstream media whined about Ms. Clinton being asked about Sidney Blumenthal, but that idea came from a May 2015 report in the liberal bible AKA NY Times.

The State Department released 850 pages of Hillary Clinton Benghazi-related email documents and the NY Times reviewed the ones having to do with Clinton Family buddy Sidney Blumenthal. Amongst the treasure trove of emails is this paragraph on a correspondence sent by Blumenthal to Clinton on 9/12/12 the day after the attack:

Mr. Blumenthal sent Mrs. Clinton a memo with his intelligence about what had occurred. The memo said the attacks were by “demonstrators” who “were inspired by what many devout Libyan viewed as a sacrilegious internet video on the prophet Mohammed originating in America.” Mrs. Clinton forwarded the memo to Mr. Sullivan, saying “More info.” (Pages 193-195)

The Times established that the Blumenthal emails were sent out to staff at state without telling them who it was from (he was described as HRC friend) and that much of the Libya intelligence that Mr. Blumenthal passed on to Mrs. Clinton appears to have come from a group of business associates he was advising as they sought to win contracts from the Libyan transitional government. And Most most of what Blumenthal sent was garbage.

But based on the above it seems that the false story about a lousy Mohammed video causing the Benghazi attack may have been supported by an email from Sid Blumenthal.

In June of 2014 Bret Baier interviewed Eric Stahl, a retired major in the U.S. Air Force, who piloted the C-17 aircraft that used to transport the corpses of the four fallen heroes from the Benghazi attacks along with the attack’s survivors from Tripoli to the safety of an American military base in Germany.

During the interview Stahl reported the terrorists who attacked the U.S. consulate and CIA annex in Benghazi used cell phones, stolen from State Department personnel during the attacks, and American intelligence agencies listened as they called their superiors to report their success. Multiple sources confirmed this report.

The stolen phone call report agrees with every CIA report, every military report, two State Department emails from Beth Jones and a phone call from Deputy Chief of Mission Greg Hicks, second in command of our Libyan operations to the late Ambassador Stevens, testimony from General Ham and Leon Panetta… all blamed the attack on terrorism before the attack was over. By the end of the day on 9/11/12 everybody knew it was an act of terrorism perpetuated by al Qaeda affiliate Ansar Al Sharia.

Now this is where Major Stahl comes in.

Stahl said members of a CIA-trained Global Response Staff who raced to the scene of the attacks were “confused” by the administration’s repeated implication of the video as a trigger for the attacks, because “they knew during the attack…who was doing the attacking.” Asked how, Stahl told anchor Bret Baier: “Right after they left the consulate in Benghazi and went to the [CIA] safehouse, they were getting reports that cell phones, consulate cell phones, were being used to make calls to the attackers’ higher ups.”

A separate U.S. official, one with intimate details of the bloody events of that night, confirmed the major’s assertion. The second source, who requested anonymity to discuss classified data, told Fox News he had personally read the intelligence reports at the time that contained references to calls by terrorists – using State Department cell phones captured at the consulate during the battle – to their terrorist leaders. The second source also confirmed that the security teams on the ground received this intelligence in real time.

Major Stahl was never interviewed by the Accountability Review Board, the investigative panel convened, pursuant to statute, by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, as the official body reviewing all the circumstances surrounding the attacks and their aftermath. Many lawmakers and independent experts have criticized the thoroughness of the ARB, which also never interviewed Clinton nor the under secretary of State for management, Patrick Kennedy, a key figure in the decisions about security at the consulate in the period preceding the attack there.

There is plenty more evidence, but from the above it is clear that the President was told immediately that Benghazi was a terrorist attack, Hillary Clinton was told immediately that it was a terrorist attack, the CIA insisted it was a terrorist attack. The White House and State Dept. rushed to pick a video to blame, and the one they ended up singling out was their second choice. Heck even the terrorists “said” it was a terrorist attack–on State Department cell phones.

There is no doubt about it, Hillary was caught lying, and now the mainstream media is lying about Hillary’s lies.