Breaking: NEW Hillary Clinton Benghazi, Libya, Emails Discovered!

originally posted by: gentledissident

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
Nah...she will announce that she and bill are adopting another baby...like she did when bill got caught with his pants down in the oval office...buy you know, I never did see the kid....

What? I don't remember that. Do you happen to have a link?

It was in the papers and I heard it on the radio also, but this came up when I searched and it sums it up nicely. It was in regards to the election poll results faltering, not the Lewinsky debacle, but the same idea - distraction.

By Eagle in NYC on December 15, 1999

Format: Hardcover
....Here is how Barbara Olson begins Chapter 1. She begins with this intro quote: "Life is a corrupting process from the time a child learns to play his mother off against his father in the politics of when to go to bed; he who fears corruption fears life." - Saul Alinsky, "Rules For Radicals"

She then begins her book: "Do you remember Hillary's pre-election baby? In the summer before the 1996 election, when the Clintons' popularity had waned and it seemed as if the struggle for reelection might not succeed, Hillary Rodham Clinton let journalist Walter Isaacson know that she and the president had `talked about' adopting a baby. She let it slip that they were '`talking about it more now.'' She added, `I must say we're hoping to have another child.'..." Brilliant juxtaposition and the book gets better from there.

I especially enjoyed her analysis of how Hillary, far from being a passive "Tammy Wynette", actually commanded the team of "secret police" (Dick Morris's term) who's job it is to humiliate, intimidate and destroy the countless women who have over the years come in contact with his Crooked Willy. She is far from being a mere enabler. Because of her rise in power each time she rescues him from scandal, she, in their own sick little relationship, actually encourages his depravity.

If you want to know how low this woman actually is, ask yourself why she has never addressed the sexual abuse allegations of the Democratic fundraiser, Kathleen Willey, or the rape allegation of Democratic campaign worker, Juanita Broaderick? And why, after years of destroying these little women, did she have the gall to go on national TV and flat out lie that the rumors (later of course proven true) that he had sex with the 21 year old Democratic White House intern, Monica Lewinsky, were part of a "vast right wing conspiracy"?

Breaking: NEW Hillary Clinton Benghazi, Libya, Emails Discovered!

The messages, according to reports, were exchanged with former top Gen. David Petraeus, beginning before Clinton entered office and continuing into her first days on the job.

So...Hillary Clinton began as Secretary of State in 2009..

The Benghazi annex that was attacked was not created until 2011..

And the Benghazi attack was Sept. 11 2012..

Having a hard time reconciling the timeline with your OP title and theme?

a reply to: Indigo5

So...Hillary Clinton began as Secretary of State in 2009.. 

The Benghazi annex that was attacked was not created until 2011.. 

And the Benghazi attack was Sept. 11 2012.. 

What date did they arms deals, transfers/smuggling start going down regarding Libya?

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: Indigo5

So...Hillary Clinton began as Secretary of State in 2009.. 

The Benghazi annex that was attacked was not created until 2011.. 

And the Benghazi attack was Sept. 11 2012.. 

What date did they arms deals, transfers/smuggling start going down regarding Libya?

Early to mid 2011 is when we facilitated arms deals to Libyan Rebels...Right before Gadhafi was overthrown in late 2011.

So again....Without disregarding time itself..I don't see how this OP title is correct? Emails from before she started in 2009 into the first few days..

originally posted by: Indigo5
don't see how this OP title is correct? Emails from before she started in 2009 into the first few days..

I suppose you think there was some kind of a floating grace period, or what?

a reply to: Indigo5

The article *clearly* states not all the emails are Benghazi related.

The point is she didn't turn over all her emails when she said she did.

government-related correspondence

the deflection tactics are fading fast

originally posted by: burntheships

originally posted by: Indigo5
don't see how this OP title is correct? Emails from before she started in 2009 into the first few days..

I suppose you think there was some kind of a floating grace period, or what?

That makes no sense? What does that have to do with the Arab Spring, The arming of rebels, The Benghazi Annex, Qaddafi being ousted etc. etc. all happening long after the transition when she took office in 2009. They have already said none of those emails are classified? So...What I suspect is that these emails before she took office and the first few days as she settled in were general get to know you stuff that happens in transition..

But TIME itself doesn't not support what the OP title claims...2008/2009 is not 2011/2012...the Benghazi annex didn't exist, the Arab Spring had not even begun, no formal rebel movement existed, no arms smuggling had occurred yet, Kaddafi still ruled Libya etc. etc. AND if the plan is to engage in conspriracy..like Hillary planned it all before taking office in 2009...they have clearly said none of the communications were classified..so I doubt it was some super secret side project between her and Patraeus before she took office??

I am accustomed to the mental gymnastics employed in these kinds of threads...but has it devolved to doubting time itself??

I would be pleasantly surprised if she is held accountable for any of her crimes. She never has been after all. It disgusts me that members of the political elite, of which she is merely by marriage and not by merit, are regularly shown to be corrupt criminals yet it does not provoke any permanent hindrance to their careers.

Public servants swear oaths and were intended, and by all accounts should be held to the utmost accountability. Any transgression on the public trust should not simply be met with a free pass or even resignation but full prosecution.

Extraordinary power requires extraordinary responsibility. This helps ensure power is not sought or abused by the weak or corrupt-minded, and fosters a safer environment for a country's citizens.

a reply to: Indigo5

Time you say? Does that include dates?

Hillary Rodham Clinton served as the 67th Secretary
of State of the United States from
January 21, 2009 to February 1, 2013.

The Clinton-Petraeus messages, according to the Department,
were exchanged in January and February of 2009
and included a discussion about personnel.

www.foxnews.com...

These were turned over by the Obama Administration DOD,

lol not the GOP.

Get your dates and alpha codes straight.

edit on 26-9-2015 by burntheships because: clarity

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: Indigo5

So...Hillary Clinton began as Secretary of State in 2009.. 

The Benghazi annex that was attacked was not created until 2011.. 

And the Benghazi attack was Sept. 11 2012.. 

What date did they arms deals, transfers/smuggling start going down regarding Libya?

Early to mid 2011 is when we facilitated arms deals to Libyan Rebels...Right before Gadhafi was overthrown in late 2011.

So again....Without disregarding time itself..I don't see how this OP title is correct? Emails from before she started in 2009 into the first few days..

It's stated that there were TWO separate discoveries of emails.

ONE represents a chain of 900+ Libya/Benghazi-related emails from Clinton's time at State.

The SECOND is a group of 9 or 10 emails between HRC and General Petraeus with took place over about a month...beginning before Clinton entered office and continuing into her first days on the job.

Again, this is all stated in the OP article.
From OP Source Article:

The State Department has received an email chain between former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Gen. David Petraeus that apparently was not included in the collection she said was a full record of her work-related correspondence.

In addition, the State Department said it provided more than 900 Libya-related emails to the House Select Committee on Benghazi Friday. The Department has had those emails since December.

Officials said the emails in no way dealt with classified material. But their existence challenges Clinton's claim that she has handed over the entirety of her work emails from the account.

It appears that since none of the emails contained classified information, no new revelations will come out of these emails.

Did Clinton lie? I don't know. Probably so. But are lying politicians willing to go after lying politicians?

I don't think so.

This amounts to nothing in the big picture.

originally posted by: introvert

Did Clinton lie? I don't know. Probably so.

She lies everyday, but this time she Lied under Oath.
Its called Perjury.

originally posted by: introvert

It appears that since none of the emails contained classified information, no new revelations will come out of these emails.

We know *for sure* there is no classified information?

originally posted by: burntheships

originally posted by: introvert

Did Clinton lie? I don't know. Probably so.

She lies everyday, but this time she Lied under Oath.
Its called Perjury.

That will be a tough one to make stick. Let's put this in perspective using the link you provided earlier.

The Daily Beast reported on Friday that the State Department had failed to provide a “small number” of emails to a select congressional committee investigating the 2012 attack on a US diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya.

Asked by the Guardian, the State Department official said he did not know “how or why” the administration had failed to turn the Petraeus emails over originally as part of the 55,000 emails which Clinton had previously said were the full record of her work-related correspondence as secretary of state.

They began before Clinton entered office and continued into her first days at the State Department. They largely pertained to personnel matters and don’t appear to deal with highly classified material, officials said, but their existence further challenges Clinton’s claim that she has handed over the entirety of her work emails from the account.

These statements leave a lot of questions to be answered. Did Clinton hand over the emails and either the SD or the administration failed to turn them over? Did they even have to turn them over since they were personal emails of a personal nature?

If they are personal in nature, she would have been truthful in saying she handed over everything work-related.

Bilderberg luminary Henry Kissinger stated at an elite dinner party in Washington DC that Hillary Clinton should run for president in 2016.

War criminals such as Henry Kissinger support Hillary Clinton. Here's a pic of her and Kissinger at the Council on Foreign Relations. She is also a member of Bilderberg and the Trilateral Commission. She is supported by the evil empire. More war, death, occupying and no regard to human life or suffering. So, go ahead and vote for this tyrant.

Maybe this will prevent that power hungry mad women from becoming President. Her campaign has been spinning down the turd pipe lately as it is, so hopefully this will sink her to the bottom of the turd tank where she belongs. ~$heopleNation

a reply to: introvert

If they are personal in nature, she would have been truthful in saying she handed over everything work-related.

The blurb that you quoted doesn't say 'personal'.
It says 'personnel'. Meaning that it deals with people that worked for either her or Petraeus.
That makes it 'work related'.

originally posted by: introvert
Did Clinton hand over the emails and either the SD or the administration failed to turn them over? Did they even have to turn them over since they were personal emails of a personal nature?

If they are personal in nature, she would have been truthful in saying she handed over everything work-related.

Keep ignoring the fact that these work related emails were
discovered by the Obama Administration DOD, clearly
stated were not from Clinton.

The Petraeus emails, first discovered by the Defense Department and then passed to the State Department’s inspector general, challenge that claim.
Time

I keep hoping something will eventually be done about this... HOPING being the operative word.

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: Indigo5

So...Hillary Clinton began as Secretary of State in 2009.. 

The Benghazi annex that was attacked was not created until 2011.. 

And the Benghazi attack was Sept. 11 2012.. 

What date did they arms deals, transfers/smuggling start going down regarding Libya?

Early to mid 2011 is when we facilitated arms deals to Libyan Rebels...Right before Gadhafi was overthrown in late 2011.

So again....Without disregarding time itself..I don't see how this OP title is correct? Emails from before she started in 2009 into the first few days..

It's stated that there were TWO separate discoveries of emails.

ONE represents a chain of 900+ Libya/Benghazi-related emails from Clinton's time at State.

The SECOND is a group of 9 or 10 emails between HRC and General Petraeus with took place over about a month...beginning before Clinton entered office and continuing into her first days on the job.

Lord the BS gets so deep so quick in these threads. There is such an unwillingness to start with facts.

OK...so 900+ emails?

Also on Friday, a State Department official also told CNN that in the process of turning over Libya-related emails to the Select Committee on Benghazi, it found a "small number" of Benghazi-related emails that had not been disclosed to the committee previously. These emails are among 925 Libya-related emails being turned over Friday and were found within the emails Clinton turned over to the State Department from her private server.

www.cnn.com...

It looks like a "small number"..you are pretending the 900+ emails already turned over have just been discovered?

It can't be coincidence that the facts are always wrong in these OPs?