“THE SOUND OF SILENCE”
by Joseph DeMaio, ©2016
Speaking of Hillary Clinton, as once again, faithful P&E readers, we celebrate another July Fourth, we now know that recently HRC met for a “voluntary” 3½ hour session with eight (8) FBI investigators. Oh, to have been a “fly on the wall” for that gathering.
After it was over, the Clinton Machine coughed up the statement that HRC was pleased (lie #42,780) to have had the opportunity “to assist [lie #42,781] the Department of Justice in bringing this review [lie #42,783] to a conclusion.”
The prevarication that she was “pleased” or that she was “assisting” the FBI or that the session involved only a social chat over their “review” of her computer-server defalcations is beyond absurd. It is mendacious, deceitful and treacherous. Responding to the oft-repeated lie the Machine kept repeating before the “voluntary interview” that the FBI’s activities were merely a “security inquiry,” James Comey, the Director of the FBI, stated: “I don’t even know what that means, a ‘security inquiry.’ We do investigations here at the FBI.” ). One wonders what the “over-under” is on how many times she “respectfully” invoked her Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination.
Time will tell, of course, whether, she is formally indicted, but either way, she loses. If she is indicted by a U.S. Department of Justice that is captained by the Usurper-in-Chief’s Attorney General – who in an incomprehensible blunder allowed her “impartiality” to be fatally compromised by Bill (“Slick Willie”) Clinton in Phoenix – she will be toast as a viable candidate for president. Even the Democrats acknowledge this reality. If she is not formally indicted by the Justice Department, and, as Mr. Trump has predicted, confirming that “the fix is in,” she will be toast in the court of public opinion, which next convenes on November 8, 2016. Even HRC will need to begin practicing the words “President Trump.”
All of her current e-mail problems can properly be traced to her likely felonious – but yet to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt before a jury – decision to set up and use her own private “homebrew” computer server for official State Department business. Plainly, her obsession for secrecy and the ability to hide nefarious activities and communications is proving to be her downfall. The wide spectrum of federal statutes, regulations and internal State Department policy protocols which were violated have been debated widely…, but one curious morsel remains.
That morsel takes the form of various findings contained in the recently-released House Select Committee on Benghazi Final Report (“HSCBR”). Tucked away in the 800+ pages of the report and its appendices is the fact that even today, we still have zero answers to the questions of why security measures in Benghazi were degraded and lowered in the days leading up to the attack and why no attempts were made by either the usurper’s diplomatic or military resources to come to the aid of the four besieged Americans in Benghazi on September 11 – 12, 2012. Nothing. Nada. Zip.
Indeed, while the State Department has dragged its feet – much as were Ambassador Stevens’ feet dragged through the streets of Benghazi after he was murdered – in providing information to the Select Committee investigating the attack, much information, including HRC e-mails and other documents, remain unproduced. Hidden. Captive somewhere.
The Select Committee Report specifically notes that the State Department has given as a basis for refusing to produce such documents, including HRC’s electronic e-mail documents, the explanation that they were being withheld because of “important Executive Branch institutional interests” or “important Executive Branch confidentiality interests.” See HSCBR Part IV at 30 (citing a May 22, 2015 letter to the Chairman of the Committee, Mr. Gowdy, from Ms. Julia Frifield, Assistant Secretary of State for Legislative Affairs, U.S. Department of State.)
Really? Ambassador Christopher Stevens is dead; Sean Smith is dead; Tyrone Woods is dead; and Glen Doherty is dead. And executive branch “interests” are being called upon to trump the committee’s efforts to reveal the truth? Seriously? And these “public servants” claim to be Americans?
Moreover, when the Select Committee thereafter sought further explanation for the refusal to disgorge and produce the requested e-mails and documents and seeking to learn the nature of such documents and the basis in law, as opposed to executive branch “interests,” for their withholding, this was the result: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zLfCnGVeL4. Correct. Simon and Garfunkel. The sound of silence. Doubling down on its obstructionist policies, the State Department representatives – including Ms. Frifield – have outright refused to respond even to the question of what the nature of the concealed documents is and what the legal as opposed to fantasized basis was – and is – for their continued concealment. Crickets.
This post began with the first part of a quote from Nazi Third Reich Minister of Propaganda Joseph Goebbels regarding the importance of governments not only telling big lies, but constantly repeating them. Here is the rest of Herr Goebbels’ quote: “The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” (Emphasis added).
The House Select Committee’s efforts continued until late June, 2016, just prior to the release of the HSCBR. On June 27, 2016, Chairman Gowdy confirmed that, despite repeated requests to the State Department, including Secretary of State John Kerry, neither the requested e-mails; nor a log of the concealed documents, including e-mails; nor an identification of the legal basis for the concealment had been provided.
What possibly could be so radioactive; so incriminating; so treasonously evil as to invoke the sounds of silence?
How about this: could the e-mails between and/or among HRC, the usurper at 1600 and their cabal of complicit sycophants – assuming they even still exist – confirm a far more insidious reason why security in Benghazi was lowered and no one came to the aid of the four Americans killed in the attack? Could they prove or corroborate, for example, the theory that the attack was really the result of a botched kidnapping attempt, one where Ambassador Stevens would be “allowed” to be taken captive in exchange for an agreement to release from federal prison here the “Blind Sheikh,” Omar Abdel-Rahman?
So goes the theory – still unproven but replete with answers to why security was degraded; why no official rescue efforts were made; and why initial ad hoc attempts to render aid were ordered to “stand down” – in the days leading up to the 2012 election, the usurper’s poll numbers were in a tailspin. What could be done to reverse that spiral? Might the missing e-mails corroborate the following hypothetical discussion somewhere in D.C.?
“Wait,” [redacted for important Executive Branch institutional/confidentiality interests] said. “Egyptian President Morsi – you know he’s pals with HRC, don’t you? He wants to have that blind sheik Abdel-Rahman who attacked the World Trade Center in ‘93 released from prison for ‘health and humanitarian’ reasons.”
“So?” replied [redacted for important Executive Branch institutional/confidentiality interests].
“So,” replied [redacted for important Executive Branch institutional/confidentiality interests] “what if we could set it up through HRC and her gang at State with Morsi’s Muslim Brotherhood goons to have some high-value asset… say, a U.S. ambassador somewhere in the Middle East … offered up for a fake kidnapping? It would have to look like the real thing, of course, and you couldn’t tell the asset, but the deal would be that Morsi and his thugs would keep the asset safe, while publicly threatening to decapitate him. Then, just before the election, we would reluctantly and with great hand-wringing agree to trade the asset for Abdel-Rahman. Morsi gets what he wants; the boss is a hero and gets re-elected; and no one is the wiser.”
“Yeah,” said [redacted for important Executive Branch institutional/confidentiality interests] “but how could we keep that under the radar?. I mean, that’s treason.”
“Well, it’s only treason…” said [redacted for important Executive Branch institutional/confidentiality interests] “if somebody outside this room finds out.”
“Hmmm,” said [redacted for important Executive Branch institutional/confidentiality interests], “got any particular asset in mind?”
“Ummm,” replied [redacted for important Executive Branch institutional/confidentiality interests] “how about Christopher Stevens? He’s going to Benghazi soon.”
While the foregoing exchange, as well as many others, may (or may not) have actually taken place, if true, it would explain a lot of things left unanswered by the HSCBR, by the perpetual stonewalling at the State Department and by a sycophantic mainstream media interested only in electing HRC… on the graves of four dead Americans. The wall erected by the State Department dwarfs any wall that a President Trump would build.
Three questions remain. First, why does the HSCBR make no mention whatsoever of the potential for a kidnapping of Ambassador Stevens? It was clear that there were people at the State Department who thought that a kidnapping of Ambassador Stevens was possible. As recounted here, at 9:06 PM Eastern Time on the night of the Sept. 11, 2012, attack, Eric Pelofsky, senior adviser to United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice, sent an email to her in which he expressed concern about a possible kidnap plot. Pelofsky was most likely concerned about a real kidnapping plot rather than a fake, pre-engineered one. Ah, yes, Susan Rice… chief administration flack for the “vile video” lie. Why this e-mail, and the word “Pelofsky” appear nowhere in the HSCBR is a mystery.
Second, although the Pelofsky e-mail to Rice was well-known, why is there no mention of it at all in the Citizen’s Commission on Benghazi report either? This omission is particularly curious in light of the fact that a member of that commission, retired four-star admiral James Lyons, was one of the first “higher-profile” individuals to postulate that the attack was the consequence of a treasonous kidnapping plot gone bad when violent and unanticipated resistance to the concocted abduction threw a giant screwdriver into the plan. Yet like the HSCBR, the Citizen’s Commission report also makes no mention of the potential “botched kidnapping” plot. If the CCB has discovered evidence that the botched kidnapping plot was bogus, it should have so stated.
Third, in the YouTube video that is embedded into the shoebat.com article noted above, when it was originally posted on September 13, 2012 – within hours of the attack – the video presented an image taken on one of the attackers’ cellphones as they advanced toward the local (feckless) security forces guarding the residential quarters within the compound where Ambassador Stevens was housed.
The audio that accompanied the video recorded a man shouting in Arabic, “Don’t shoot us! We were sent by Dr. Morsi!” Rest assured, dear P&E readers, yours truly watched the video, and while Arabic is not my first language, if Walid Shoebat says that is what the gunman was yelling, my inclination is to believe him. Such an “excited utterance” is entirely consistent with the theory that an unsuspecting Ambassador Stevens was to be kidnapped, held “hostage” until just before the 2012 election, then released in exchange for Abdel-Rahman.
Heck, although it had not yet happened, the “1-Bergdahl-for-5-Guantanamo-terrorists” exchange orchestrated by the regime in 2015 is stunning after-the-fact proof of its willingness – even eagerness – to consort and strike “deals” with terrorists.
But the curious thing is that when one now tries to access that YouTube video, this message pops up instead: “The YouTube account associated with this video has been terminated due to multiple third-party notifications of copyright infringement.” Go ahead… try it. I will wait.
Say what? Copyright infringement? Multiple third-party notifications? Who owns the copyright, the terrorist? Who notified YouTube to take down the video? Can a foreign terrorist copyright something in the U.S. Patent, Trademark and Copyright Office? Does HRC’s law firm have a copyright and intellectual property section?
Luckily, there is another place where the “don’t-shoot-us-Morsi-sent-us” video is still accessible: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eRgZ82OTRk. Let us see how long it takes for notices of copyright infringement to hit the YouTube offices regarding this one.
And, by the way, has anyone checked lately on the whereabouts of Omar Abdel-Rahman? Is he still in the Butner Correctional Facility in North Carolina?
So many questions, so little time. Vote carefully in November. Happy Fourth of July.