A “GROWING TSUNAMI OF EVIDENCE”
by Joseph DeMaio, ©2016
(Sep. 21, 2016) — Well, as the continuing collapse of the Hillary Rodham Clinton (“HRC”) campaign unfolds, your faithful servant persists in seeking out the truth about what really happened in Benghazi, Libya on September 11-12, 2012. These matters have recently been addressed here and here. And when anomalies appear and clarifications or corrections become necessary, those must be addressed. Two such anomalies prompt this clarification post.
First, in your faithful servant’s P&E post appearing September 9, 2016, it was hypothesized that, since we did not know precisely what was contained in a June 24, 2012 e-mail sent by HRC confidant Sidney Blumenthal to her, but which contained the subject line “MB/SCAF inside deal,” speculation was thereby justified. Part of the speculation hypothesized that the content could have supported the theory that the Benghazi disaster was the fallout of a botched kidnapping attempt orchestrated by the BHO regime and/or his then-Secretary of State.
However, following that posting, the contents of that e-mail became known through the WikiLeaks “Hillary Clinton Email Archive.” It now appears that there is nothing in the text of the e-mail directly implicating any “agreement” between the Muslim Brotherhood (“MB”) and the Egyptian junta, the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (“SCAF”), relating to a structured kidnapping plot.
This does not mean, however, that no such plot existed, but only that the text of the e-mail does not support that theory unless it was communicated in coded terms so obtuse that one would need an Enigma Machine to reveal the hidden message. Indeed, the text confirms that the “agreement” reached between the MB and the SCAF was more of a “détente” to be utilized as a transition tool allowing an orderly transfer of power from the military to civilian rule.
The e-mail also confirms, however, that the Muslim Brotherhood and its objectives were plainly acceptable to the SCAF, provided they did not threaten the military. Indeed, the e-mail confirms that with restraint, the consensus was that the newly-declared winner of the presidential election, Mohamed Morsi, and his allies in the MB, backed by public opinion and political momentum “will allow the MB to dominate the entire government.” Recall that one of the core objectives of Morsi and the MB was the liberation by the United States of Omar Abdel-Rahman, the “Blind Sheikh,” from prison.
Stated otherwise, while the June 24, 2012 e-mail does not contain any obvious references to a clandestine plan to abduct Ambassador Stevens – who in June 2012 was likely nowhere near either Egypt or Benghazi – neither does it prove that such a plan did not exist. As noted in other posts, there is a growing body of anecdotal evidence that such may indeed have been at the core of the attack on Benghazi.
Accordingly, while the June 24, 2012 e-mail does not contain “smoking gun” evidence, the notes from the July 2, 2012 FBI “interview” of HRC confirm that a second e-mail, dated July 1, 2012, exists. See FBI notes, Part 2 at 2. That e-mail contains the subject line “FW: Congratulations!” The questions raised here as to the meaning of that e-mail and what the text of that communication contained remain unanswered. That is because unlike the text of the June 24, 2012 e-mail archived at WikiLeaks, the archive of HRC’s emails does not contain any such “FW: Congratulations!” document bearing the date July 1, 2012, despite the fact that the FBI is in possession of one with that date on it. This is interesting for a couple of reasons.
To begin with, when HRC was shown the document by the FBI, she commented that “[s]ince the [July 1, 2012] email was sent from Russia, [HRC] stated she must have sent it from the plane.” This statement seemingly confirms (bearing in mind that one can never be sure of the truth when HRC utters something) that she was the one who “must have sent it from the plane” while she was at a Russian airport or in Russian airspace.
Second, HRC‘s response to the FBI on July 2, 2016 included the remark that “she received no particular guidance as to how she should use the President’s email address [redacted]@who.eop.gov.” See FBI notes, Part 2 at 2. Third, piecing these facts together, it seems reasonable to conclude that HRC was forwarding a message of “Congratulations!” which she had herself received from some other sender to BHO (aka the “Usurper at 1600”).
Thus, on the assumption that it is still possible that other communications – whether in “coded” email terminology (see FBI notes, Part 2 at 7) or in e-mails successfully destroyed by BleachBit, hammers or the waters of the Potomac – had taken place between and/or among Morsi, HRC, BHO and/or their surrogates and operatives regarding a “win-win” abduction plot, with Ambassador Stevens as the unknowing pawn, the “botched kidnapping” theory still survives.
In addition, it is clear that HRC was well aware of the desires of Morsi, the MB and the radical Islamic group al-Gamara al-Islamiya to demand that BHO release Abdel-Rahman. This is confirmed from a January 23, 2012 email which contained a Wall Street Journal opinion-editorial of that same date addressing “How the U.S. Should Handle the Islamist Rise in Egypt.” She had received the email from Jake Sullivan with his comment: “worth reading.” HRC forwarded that email later the same day to Robert Russo (a State Department aide) with the direction: “Pls print for me.”
What remains uncertain, of course, is what was contained in the text of the July 1, 2012 e-mail and why it somehow was related to an expression of “congratulations.” What is known, however, is that after the Benghazi attack in which Ambassador Stevens, along with Sean Smith, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods died, Morsi and the MB fell into deep disfavor with Egyptians because of Morsi’s attempts to impose an authoritarian Islamist agenda on the government.
He was removed from office July 3, 2013, tried on various criminal charges – one of which resulted in the death penalty – and presently sits in an Egyptian prison awaiting determination of his fate. There is no indication (as yet) that a failed abduction of Ambassador Stevens and the continued incarceration of the Blind Sheikh played a role in the prosecutions of Morsi. However, if such a plan existed and failed, the continued incarceration of the Blind Sheikh in North Carolina could not have made the folks at MB or al-Gamara al-Islamiya very happy.
What is also known is that, insofar as the September 11-12, 2012 Benghazi attacks are concerned, the “real-time” cellphone video original posted at shoebat.com – wherein people are heard shouting “Don’t shoot us! We were sent by Mursi!” – remains blocked by YouTube with the following message: “The YouTube account associated with this video has been terminated due to multiple third-party notifications of copyright infringement.”
But wait…. there’s another anomaly requiring clarification.
In researching this clarification post, it has been discovered that the cellphone video that has been blocked at the shoebat.com website (but still accessible here is not, in fact, copyrighted, at least in the records of the U.S. Copyright Office. The message still appearing at the shoebat.com website gives as the reason for the blockage “multiple third-party notifications of copyright infringement.”
It is impossible to claim copyright infringement when no underlying copyright exists in the first place. The U.S. Copyright Office website confirms that there is no such thing as an “international copyright,” adding, however, that a foreign national may be able to claim protection against infringement under intellectual property treaties that have been entered into between the United States and foreign governments. But such a claim sounds in protections originating in a treaty, not under a legal or statutory “copyright.”
As noted here, it would be interesting to learn who purports to claim “copyright” privileges and infringement claims otherwise purporting to justify instructions to YouTube to block the video. It would also be interesting to know whether the law firms representing HRC and/or BHO and/or anyone else in the regime’s tentacles have left any fingerprints on the “notifications of copyright infringement” now appearing at the shoebat.com website. All of this reasonably leads one to speculate: might the “third-party” notifications to YouTube be merely a scare tactic to camouflage an undesirable video from the public?
In this regard, in preparing this post, your faithful servant also ran across this interesting Fox News interview of Retired Major Eric Stahl dated June 11, 2014. In the interview, Major Stahl – who was on standby with a C-17 aircraft in Germany when the assault began – revealed that at least some of the cellphones used during the attack were State Department phones seized by the terrorists as the raid began. The attackers were using them to report back to their superiors how the assault was proceeding. Perhaps the video still posted on YouTube came from one of those phones.
Equally troubling is the statement by Major Stahl (10:30 mark of the Fox News video) that when he finally arrived in Tripoli to assist in evacuating surviving Americans and wounded personnel, one of the evacuees told him that their request to have a C-17 aircraft on “standby” as a backup “contingency” at the Benghazi airport – a request made in August, 2012, the month before the attack – was denied by the State Department.
No credible explanation for that denial has been forthcoming from the State Department or from HRC. Which brings to mind, of course, HRC’s callous remark: “After all, what difference at this point does it make?” Of equal interest, we also know that Major Stahl was never interviewed by either the House Select Committee on Benghazi (June 7, 2016 Report) nor the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (November 21, 2014 Report). No explanation has been forthcoming from Congress for those omissions, either.
Adding to the growing tsunami of evidence pointing to patently criminal violations of law by HRC and her handlers and operatives regarding the destruction of her e-mails – including potentially incriminating ones regarding a kidnapping plot – is the revelation that exactly one day after the State Department agreed to stop stonewalling the House Select Committee on Benghazi’s subpoena on the release of HRC’s e-mails it its possession, someone posted to the Internet a request for assistance on how to strip a large number of e-mails of a “very high VIP’s” identifying address, camouflaging the origin of the e-mail while preserving its text. Traces of the request have since been purged – shockingly – from the Internet.
That “someone” finger points to Paul Combetta, one of HRC’s computer techies at Platte River Networks in Colorado. That is where HRC had transferred the e-mails form her Chappaqua, New York basement when things started going south. Combetta is likely the one who was directed by HRC aide Cheryl Mills and an attorney working with Mills, Heather Samuelson, to “remove from their laptops all of the e-mails from the July and September 2014 exports [from Chappaqua to Colorado].” See FBI notes of July 2, 2016 HRC interview, Part 1 at 18. Combetta is also likely the one who popularized the “kill-all-traces-of-e-mail-data” software product known as BleachBit by applying it to HRC’s e-mails.
Recall as well that Combetta is one of the persons granted immunity by FBI Director James (“move-along-folks, nothing-to-see-here”) Comey in exchange for his cooperation in investigating HRC’s mishandling (aka, destruction post-subpoena) of classified and confidential e-mails. Unlike “trickle- down” economics, which fueled a resurgence of growth under President Reagan, the malignant “trickle-down corruption” originating in January 2009 at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and seeping lower ever since through the State Department, the IRS and the Justice Department, has finally reached the FBI. That agency’s former motto – fidelity, bravery, integrity – has effectively been morphed by Comey into something more accurate: “feckless, brazen, incompetent.”
Finally, we also know – contrary to the despicable lie repeated by HRC that “we did not lose a single person in Libya” – that four Americans, including the U.S. Ambassador to Libya, died because of the acts and omissions of their government. That government was at that time headed up by a chief executive whose whereabouts on September 11-12, 2012 was and to this day remains unknown and by a Secretary of State who was, is and from all appearances will remain into the foreseeable future a congenital, pathological and unrepentant liar.
Ask yourself this: if she cannot be trusted to hold as confidential United States classified, top secret and special access program (“SAP”) information, how can she be trusted to have access to the nation’s nuclear weapons codes kept in the “football?” Recall that her husband, Slick Willie, actually lost the access card to the football – literally – on the day after the Monica Lewinsky scandal broke.
Question for the electorate: do you really want to further sully the White House and endanger the Nation by allowing these people back in? Vote carefully on November 8, 2016.