Author Topic: Yet another perjuring Clinton?  (Read 839 times)

0 Members and 5 Guests are viewing this topic.

Online Mornac

  • Hero NewsRaker
  • *****
  • Posts: 18499
  • Liked: 423
  • Karma: +64/-182
  • Self-absorbed promethean neopelagian
    • View Profile
Yet another perjuring Clinton?
« on: April 22, 2013, 11:36:15 PM »
RAND PAUL: HILLARY'S BENGHAZI STORY UNRAVELING
'Surprised' by claim she had no knowledge of arms deals


Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., was “surprised” by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s sworn testimony in a Senate hearing in which she claimed that she did not know whether the U.S. mission in Libya was procuring or transferring weapons to Turkey and other Arab countries.

It was Paul who asked Clinton the question during the hearings. His inquiry focused on alleged weapons shipments out of Benghazi to arm the rebels fighting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s regime.

Speaking on “Aaron Klein Investigative Radio” on New York’s WABC Radio, Paul was reacting to Clinton’s testimony in light of a New York Times report last month that claimed that since early 2012, the CIA has been helping Arab governments and Turkey obtain and ship weapons to the Syrian rebels.

The plan mirrors one the Times reported in February as being proposed by Clinton herself. The Times described Clinton as one of the driving forces advocating for arming the Syrian rebels via Turkish and Arab cut outs.

The New York Times reported Clinton and then-CIA Director David Petraeus had concocted the plan, which called for vetting rebels and arming Syrian fighters with the assistance of Arab countries.

If Clinton knew about the arms transfers, she may have committed perjury during her Benghazi testimony.

Any training or arming of the Syrian rebels would be considered highly controversial. A major issue is the inclusion of jihadists, including al-Qaida, among the ranks of the Free Syrian Army and other Syrian opposition groups.

Paul further charged during the radio interview that the alleged weapons shipments “may have something to do with” why the U.S. mission in Benghazi was attacked last September.

Regarding Clinton’s testimony, Paul stated: “I was surprised that she acted as if she never even heard of the whole concept of arms coming out of Libya through Turkey … since it had been reported in several mainstream media sources that this has been going on. So I was quite surprised that she acted as if she had never heard of any of this, because some of the reports said that she has been arguing for this.”

Paul said many public and government officials “keep this sort of veil of deniability, and the reason they can deny it is, well, maybe the U.S. wasn’t actually buying and transferring the arms.

“Maybe we were facilitating it. Simply coordinating with Turkish people who were doing it and they can simply try to stand by and say, ‘Well, no, we didn’t do it, the Turks did it.’ But in reality a lot of this may have involved our involvement.”

In the hearings over the Obama administration’s handling of the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on U.S. facilities in Benghazi, Clinton claimed to Paul that she did not know whether the U.S. was helping Turkey and other Arab countries in procure weapons.

Paul asked Clinton: “Is the U. S. involved with any procuring of weapons, transfer of weapons, buying, selling, anyhow transferring weapons to Turkey out of Libya?”

“To Turkey?” Clinton asked. “I will have to take that question for the record. Nobody has ever raised that with me.”

Continued Paul: “It’s been in news reports that ships have been leaving from Libya and that may have weapons, and what I’d like to know is the annex that was close by, were they involved with procuring, buying, selling, obtaining weapons, and were any of these weapons being transferred to other countries, any countries, Turkey included?”

Clinton replied: “Well, Senator, you’ll have to direct that question to the agency that ran the annex. I will see what information is available.”

“You’re saying you don’t know?” asked Paul.

“I do not know,” Clinton said. “I don’t have any information on that.”

Read it here

Online ivanm

  • Hero NewsRaker
  • *****
  • Posts: 20300
  • Liked: 399
  • Karma: +110/-205
    • View Profile
Re: Yet another perjuring Clinton?
« Reply #1 on: April 25, 2013, 12:52:59 PM »
That old sow was on the TV at the dedication of Bush's library.  What a way to stain a nice day.  A Laura  she isn't that is for damned sure.

Online dagon

  • Hero NewsRaker
  • *****
  • Posts: 15558
  • Liked: 883
  • Karma: +123/-191
    • View Profile
Re: Yet another perjuring Clinton?
« Reply #2 on: April 25, 2013, 01:08:35 PM »
That old sow was on the TV at the dedication of Bush's library.  What a way to stain a nice day.  A Laura  she isn't that is for damned sure.

ivan,  the first thing you should have done is ask yourself why mornac put the full story in a hyperlink rather than just post the source.

and thank goodness she isn't a "Laura".  clinton's going to be our next president if she wants it and i certainly would hope that america wouldn't desire a "Laura" for that position.

peace

Online Observer

  • Hero NewsRaker
  • *****
  • Posts: 24131
  • Liked: 1286
  • Karma: +247/-250
    • View Profile
Re: Yet another perjuring Clinton?
« Reply #3 on: April 25, 2013, 02:14:52 PM »
Clinton will never be President.

She belongs in prison for what happened not only in Benghazi, and then lying to Congress about it, but for the complete failure of our foreign policy on her watch.
"If Trump wins, I will quit this forum forever on Nov. 9th." - Flyboy the liar.

Online dagon

  • Hero NewsRaker
  • *****
  • Posts: 15558
  • Liked: 883
  • Karma: +123/-191
    • View Profile
Re: Yet another perjuring Clinton?
« Reply #4 on: April 25, 2013, 02:15:46 PM »
Clinton will never be President.

She belongs in prison for what happened not only in Benghazi, and then lying to Congress about it, but for the complete failure of our foreign policy on her watch.

yeah yeah sure sure.

peace

Online Hollybaere

  • Hero NewsRaker
  • *****
  • Posts: 12396
  • Liked: 498
  • Karma: +87/-132
    • View Profile
Re: Yet another perjuring Clinton?
« Reply #5 on: October 29, 2016, 06:21:38 PM »
Clinton will never be President.

She belongs in prison for what happened not only in Benghazi, and then lying to Congress about it, but for the complete failure of our foreign policy on her watch.

It's true!! That is why he said it!!
All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed.
Second, it is violently opposed.
Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
� ARTHUR SCHOPENHAUER (1788-1860)
Dagon is an idiot!!

Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security, Deserve Neither- Benjamin Franklin

Online Mornac

  • Hero NewsRaker
  • *****
  • Posts: 18499
  • Liked: 423
  • Karma: +64/-182
  • Self-absorbed promethean neopelagian
    • View Profile
Screws tighten in investigation of BaGua's cult leader
« Reply #6 on: August 11, 2017, 04:34:22 PM »
JUDGE ORDERS NEW SEARCHES FOR HILLARY'S BENGHAZI EMAILS

'Major court ruling may finally result in more answers about scandal'

CHELSEA SCHILLING
10 Aug 2017

A federal judge has ordered the State Department to search government email accounts of Hillary Clinton’s aides for information concerning the Sept. 11, 2012, Benghazi attacks that took the lives of four Americans.

Washington D.C. District Court Judge Amit Mehta ordered the State Department on Tuesday to search government email accounts belonging to Clinton former deputy chief of staff Huma Abedin, former chief of staff Cheryl Mills and former director of policy planning Jake Sullivan. The ruling was made in response to a lawsuit filed by government watchdog Judicial Watch.

The accounts are expected to contain communications between Clinton, who was secretary of state at the time, and her staff.

“The court finds that State’s search was inadequate insofar as it did not search the official state.gov e-mail accounts of Secretary Clinton’s three aides, and orders State to conduct a supplemental search of those accounts,” the ruling stated.

Judge Mehta, an Obama appointee, explained that the State Department is unlikely able to “adequately” access emails sent from Clinton’s private server. However, he said, the department “has an obligation to search its own server for responsive records.”

Like the reporting you see here? Sign up for free news alerts from WND.com, America’s independent news network.

Judge Mehta expressed his concern that a thorough State Department search of the official emails may not “produce any marginal return.”

The State Department has reviewed more than 30,000 emails Clinton surrendered to the agency in 2014, as well as emails sent and received on personal accounts belonging to the three aides.

“Secretary Clinton used a private email server, located in her home, to transmit and receive work-related communications during her tenure as Secretary of State,” Judge Mehta said.

“[State] has not, however, searched the one records system over which it has always had control and that is almost certain to contain some responsive records: the state.gov email server.”

The judge also said the department “has offered no assurance” that emails it collected from Clinton and her three aides “constitute the entirely of Secretary Clinton’s emails during the time period relevant to Plaintiff’s FOIA request.”

Judicial Watch celebrated the judge’s order.

“This major court ruling may finally result in more answers about the Benghazi scandal — and Hillary Clinton’s involvement in it — as we approach the attack’s fifth anniversary,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said.

“It is remarkable that we had to battle both the Obama and Trump administrations to break through the State Department’s Benghazi stonewall. Why are Secretary Tillerson and Attorney General Sessions wasting taxpayer dollars protecting Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration?”

The State Department must submit its findings to the court by Sept. 22.

The Benghazi attack is among WND’s list of Clinton’s 22 biggest scandals ever.

As WND reported, Clinton was secretary of state as Islamic militants attacked the U.S. special mission in Benghazi, Libya, and murdered U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and U.S. Foreign Service Information Management officer Sean Smith. Two CIA contractors, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, were also killed.

In the months leading up to the attack, Hillary’s State Department cut security in Libya. Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., accused Hillary of “dereliction of duty” that led to the deaths of the four Americans.

“The State Department not only failed to honor repeated requests for additional security, but instead actually reduced security in Libya,” Johnson wrote in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. “Although no one can say with certainty, I firmly believe a relatively small contingent of armed military guards would have prevented the attack, and those four lives would not have been lost.”

As WND reported, a security decision finalized personally by Hillary may have unwittingly doomed the Americans in Benghazi. Hillary herself signed waivers that allowed the facility to be legally occupied, since it did not meet the minimum official security standards set by the State Department. The waiver legally allowed the CIA annex to be housed in a location about one mile from the U.S. special mission.

According to accounts from Benghazi survivors, the delayed response time by those at the CIA annex may have cost the lives of Stevens and the three other Americans killed at the special mission. If the CIA annex had been co-located with the U.S. special mission, a rapid response team would have been on site during the initial assault in which Stevens was killed. Clinton’s waiver allowed the CIA annex to be housed at the separate location.

As WND also reported, State Department emails show Clinton knew while the attack was under way that it was being carried out by terrorists.

Judicial Watch has obtained previously classified documents from the U.S. Department of Defense and the Department of State revealing that DOD almost immediately reported that the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, was planned and carried out by al-Qaida and Muslim Brotherhood-linked terrorists. A federal court ordered the government hand over more than 100 pages of previously secret documents that showed then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and other senior Obama officials were given reports within hours of the Sept. 11, 2012, attack. In those memos, the DOD described details of a plan 10 days in advance “to kill as many Americans as possible.”

Nonetheless, Hillary falsely blamed it on “rage and violence over an awful Internet video” when she spoke at a ceremony at Andrews Air Force Base on Sept. 14, 2012, as the remains of the four Americans were returned to the U.S.

Source

Offline AngryRedMan

  • Hero NewsRaker
  • *****
  • Posts: 7808
  • Liked: 450
  • Karma: +19/-15
  • NewsRaker
    • View Profile
Re: Yet another perjuring Clinton?
« Reply #7 on: August 11, 2017, 05:45:26 PM »
As wnd reported...

Good luck with that
I invited them to, but it was never compulsory. They usually cheerfully accepted, except for the few occasions where my son chose to lie on the floor instead.

Online hurricanehook

  • Hero NewsRaker
  • *****
  • Posts: 4724
  • Liked: 789
  • Karma: +36/-42
    • View Profile
Re: Yet another perjuring Clinton?
« Reply #8 on: August 12, 2017, 01:07:28 AM »
As wnd reported...

Good luck with that


angry, you might like this:

CNN


The Hill
Everything is on its way to somewhere. Everything.

Online Mornac

  • Hero NewsRaker
  • *****
  • Posts: 18499
  • Liked: 423
  • Karma: +64/-182
  • Self-absorbed promethean neopelagian
    • View Profile
Re: Yet another perjuring Clinton?
« Reply #9 on: August 12, 2017, 10:24:02 AM »
angry, you might like this:

CNN


The Hill

--Sniff...sniff...sniff...Is that urine I smell?

Offline flyboy

  • Hero NewsRaker
  • *****
  • Posts: 3723
  • Liked: 487
  • Karma: +44/-118
    • View Profile
Re: Yet another perjuring Clinton?
« Reply #10 on: August 12, 2017, 09:00:57 PM »
http://www.wnd.com    :laugh:

Ben Ghazi yet still?  It was already settled years ago by a bi-partisan committee.  And you grow impatient with Robert Mueller?   I think the only urine you're smelling is your choice of source material.   ;D
« Last Edit: August 12, 2017, 09:03:38 PM by flyboy »

Offline AngryRedMan

  • Hero NewsRaker
  • *****
  • Posts: 7808
  • Liked: 450
  • Karma: +19/-15
  • NewsRaker
    • View Profile
Re: Yet another perjuring Clinton?
« Reply #11 on: August 12, 2017, 09:13:59 PM »
--Sniff...sniff...sniff...Is that urine I smell?

Could be.  Depends on whose crotch you are sniffing.  Maybe you are doing your felching wrong.
I invited them to, but it was never compulsory. They usually cheerfully accepted, except for the few occasions where my son chose to lie on the floor instead.

Online hurricanehook

  • Hero NewsRaker
  • *****
  • Posts: 4724
  • Liked: 789
  • Karma: +36/-42
    • View Profile
Re: Yet another perjuring Clinton?
« Reply #12 on: August 12, 2017, 11:18:02 PM »
http://www.wnd.com    :laugh:

Ben Ghazi yet still?  It was already settled years ago by a bi-partisan committee.  And you grow impatient with Robert Mueller?   I think the only urine you're smelling is your choice of source material.   ;D

"flyboy",

evidently you did not read Reply #8....
Everything is on its way to somewhere. Everything.

Online Mornac

  • Hero NewsRaker
  • *****
  • Posts: 18499
  • Liked: 423
  • Karma: +64/-182
  • Self-absorbed promethean neopelagian
    • View Profile
Re: Yet another perjuring Clinton?
« Reply #13 on: August 12, 2017, 11:35:47 PM »
Could be.  Depends on whose crotch you are sniffing.  Maybe you are doing your felching wrong.
--I'm afraid I'm not familiar with the terms here so I'll just concede to your apparent expertise in the matter.

Offline AngryRedMan

  • Hero NewsRaker
  • *****
  • Posts: 7808
  • Liked: 450
  • Karma: +19/-15
  • NewsRaker
    • View Profile
Re: Yet another perjuring Clinton?
« Reply #14 on: August 13, 2017, 09:34:19 AM »
--I'm afraid I'm not familiar with the terms here so I'll just concede to your apparent expertise in the matter.

Which terms would those be?  Crotch, sniffing, felching?  You remember making a post on August 5th 2017?  you were the second person on this board to use a form of the verb felch.  The first in 5 years.  Are you often about the business of using words with which you are unfamiliar?  Your real problem is you bring these terms to this board and you are caught being one nasty mother fucker.  I do not care who or if you are felching and whose urine you are smelling.  You and that fucking moron known as hurricane cuck knock yourselves out.
I invited them to, but it was never compulsory. They usually cheerfully accepted, except for the few occasions where my son chose to lie on the floor instead.