BREAKING? Huma/Hillary endorsed Egyptian US Embassy "protest" on 9/11/12!? Serious Al Qaeda links!?!

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: Chadwickus

If you could explain for us the context then?

If I did that I would only be guessing, like you are at this point.

a reply to: Chadwickus

Did you review all the content I posted on the last page? The timeline?

You have no theory, no conclusions that might explain this away?

You might try, because this looks ugly as all hell (as if the whole Benghazi situation didn't already before this).

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Not yet, I just think there are a lot of assumptions based on one sentence

a reply to: Chadwickus

In the OP I didn't even really know what was going on, but I knew it was WAY off.

On the previous page is where the story here gets real er unreal.

The real scary part of this situation is how a video critical of Muhammed can lead to thousands of people chimping out, violently protesting, 50+ deaths and riots. ANd how easy it would be for H to set up this FF

C'mon, hardly no comments / DEBATE? Forget the flags, I'd prefer to see this thing beaten to death no matter the outcome.

Interesting to note:

Hillary obviously knows what classification headers are and what classification markings look like.

As clearly seen on the email, the paragraphs contain the classification markings for (U) Unclassified and (SBU) Sensitive But Unclassified.


She told the FBI she thought (C) came after (A) and (B). I say that is total BS.

Great find IgnoranceIsntBliss! Unfortunately almost nobody seems to care... But on the other side, you can only point at the right direction here, you cannot prove anything. A proper way would be for some goverment agency to pick this up and investigate it, but we all know that is not going to happen. Some people are just untouchable. It would take some courageous individual in the right position to take on this case and put his/her career on the line...but that is not going to happen, everybody is very well aware of repercussions...

originally posted by: RickinVa
Interesting to note:

Hillary obviously knows what classification headers are and what classification markings look like.

As clearly seen on the email, the paragraphs contain the classification markings for (U) Unclassified and (SBU) Sensitive But Unclassified.

She told the FBI she thought (C) came after (A) and (B). I say that is total BS.

And the FBI believed her!!!!!! Evidently, they didn't look into even as much as you just did. They trusted she was telling the truth.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

I lean heavily towards this referencing information that was in the
CIA report that ended up in the Presidential Daily Brief.

The House Benghazi Panel came to the bottom of it, and how there
had been a change made in report that is part of the presidents brief.

Wording regarding "intentional assault and not the escalation of a peaceful
protest" was in the CIA report. Somewhere there ended up being three
changes, which were dismissed as a bureaucratic screw up.

benghazi.house.gov...

The 37 page report found that the first, internal CIA assessment was accurate — that no protests were involved — but then-CIA Director David Petraeus, Morell and the administration latched onto information that supported the flawed demonstration scenario. source

These three changes made to the the CIA report were changes to the
talking points that included the removal of references to Al Qaeda
and swapping the word “attacks” with “demonstrations.”

Also, recall that CIA Mike Morell had accompanied Susan Rice with her flawed
explanation that the attack was from a escalation of a "peaceful protest".

originally posted by: queenofswords

originally posted by: RickinVa
Interesting to note:

Hillary obviously knows what classification headers are and what classification markings look like.

As clearly seen on the email, the paragraphs contain the classification markings for (U) Unclassified and (SBU) Sensitive But Unclassified.

She told the FBI she thought (C) came after (A) and (B). I say that is total BS.

And the FBI believed her!!!!!! Evidently, they didn't look into even as much as you just did. They trusted she was telling the truth.

Would any Executive at the FBI get promoted, or advance their career in any way, for busting Hillary? They probably know that their careers are safer and more predictable, if she's elected President.

That's the frustrating thing about pursing these "crooked Hillary" angles. There's not much that can be done to get her before an investigative panel to answer tough questions before the election, is there? Unless that happens, all of this is pretty much "off the radar" with voting public. Even answers to the 90 questions that Hillary has to respond to before the 29th of September, will NOT be prominently covered by most major networks and newspapers.

I'm hoping that Trump can wallop Hillary at the debate, and/or Hillary's health continues to falter. These are the type of events that every MSM channel covers, which means the news ultimately reaches all voters. I remember most people at work making jokes about Bill Clinton and Monica. But nobody understood the gravity of the charges until Bill himself was hauled in, and videotaped stating, "I did not have sex with that woman!".

a reply to: JinMI

New standards = CENSORSHIP plain and simple.

No person who has not been born in the USA with at least 4 generations of family born in the USA should be allowed anywhere near secret documents. The wording of this Email sounds exactly how a boss would word the same to an underling.
Who's driving this country foreigners or our elected/appointed officials?

Thanks guys. I've finally published the monster piece that happened to trigger this thread:
The Ties That Bind The Bush & Clinton Crime Family's: The CIA's Global Drug & Jihad Empire