If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my free Email alerts. Thanks for visiting!


by Joseph DeMaio, ©2016

Hillary Rodham Clinton addressing an assembly of relatives and government functionaries upon the delivery of the bodies of the four Americans killed on September 11, 2012 during a terrorist attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya. In her speech, Clinton referred to “an awful internet video that he had nothing to do with,” which was later proved to be a lie.

(Aug. 15, 2016) — [Editor’s Note:  The following is a continuation from Part 1 in which the author speculates, based on information made public from credible sources, that the intent of the September 11, 2012 terrorist attack on the U.S. compound in Benghazi, Libya was to effect a kidnapping of the late Amb. Christopher Stevens, whose “rescue” would have occurred, in exchange for the release of imprisoned terrorist Omar Abdul-Rahman at the behest of then-Egyptian president Mohamed Morsi,  just before the November 2012 presidential election.

In the following narrative, “HRC” refers to Democrat presidential nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton; “BHO” refers to Barack Hussein Obama.]


In reviewing the issue of whether the Benghazi attack was more likely (a) a spontaneous reaction by “religion-of-peace” lunatics to a “vile video,”  or (b) a kidnapping plot gone bad, but engineered to bolster the 2012 election chances of the Usurper at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue as well as to enhance the credibility of Mohamed Morsi, consider the following informational nuggets before deciding if the theory is just another “right-wing conspiracy” yarn, or whether, in fact, it could be true.  In this regard, recall as well that there is no statute of limitations on indictments and prosecutions for murder.

1.       The 30,000 “Destroyed” E-mails

We now know that HRC and/or her lawyers destroyed – or so they believed – some 30,000 “personal” e-mails from her unauthorized, unsecure and unmonitored homebrew computer server and ancillary mobile devices.  One or more of those thousands of e-mails HRC supposedly destroyed could potentially reveal a lot about the Benghazi issue.

Last month, your faithful servant posited a question here probing into the still-unanswered question: who gave the “stand-down” order to prevent any assistance from being dispatched in response to Christopher Stevens’s repeated, panicked e-mails, cellphone and radio calls for help as the Benghazi attackers descended on the compound that evening?  Parenthetically, the House Intelligence Committee Report issued in 2014 which concluded, among other things, that there was no formal “stand-down” order, continues to be challenged and questioned.  More on that later.

That post also addressed the ever-metastasizing candidacy of HRC to become the commander-in-chief of the United States, including the myriad lies surrounding her e-mail shenanigans (also known as “crimes”), including the 30,000 e-mails that she and her lawyers destroyed.

On July 5, FBI Director James Comey contended that Clinton was “extremely careless” in her handling of sensitive government information by using a private server installed in her home from which classified emails were found to have been sent, contrary to Clinton’s claims

The July 5, 2016 decision by Clinton flack James Comey (also known as the Director of the FBI) to withhold any recommendation that she be indicted after learning that Attorney General Loretta Lynch would adopt his recommendation was and remains a professional and intellectual disgrace.  But unprofessional and disgraceful acts of this regime and its apparatchiks have become so commonplace and routine that the general public has just grown numb. Lies and deceit have become the “new normal” with this cabal.

Comey’s completely unprincipled decision came in the face of not just mountains of evidence supporting an indictment, but entire mountain ranges of such evidence.  The admitted evidence not only corroborated HRC’s venality, but Comey’s decision to just “look the other way” leads inevitably to the conclusion that all felons are equal…, but some felons are more equal than others.

Stated otherwise, certain felons are imprisoned.  Others run for president and get endorsed by the Communist Party of the United States and by the fathers of Islamist murderers who are allowed to sit in the VIP section behind the candidate at campaign rallies.

But I digress.

Comey’s decision to let HRC skate on charges which would have imprisoned anyone else does not mean, of course, that she is home free.  There is still the rumored FBI investigation of the “pay-to-play” influence-peddling she and her sidekick – Slick Willie – conducted for the Clinton Foundation while she masqueraded as Secretary of State, a matter still deliciously unfolding, this all taking place while she and her daughter were bravely dodging sniper fire in Bosnia, of course.

But there is also the question of the still-AWOL “deleted” 30,000 “personal” emails that she determined needed to be destroyed.  The full content of those e-mails is still unknown, and anyone who still swallows the HRC line that they dealt only with “yoga lessons” and “wedding plans” is indulging in an illicit, controlled Kool-Aid.  One does not need 30,000 ways to explain the lotus position or list the required floral arrangements for a wedding reception.

Indeed, as noted here, if there is truly nothing implicating official State Department secret or classified information or national security matters in them – as HRC claims – then Donald Trump’s sarcastic comment that perhaps the Russians could find them implicates nothing – repeat, nothing – problematic or nefarious, let alone treasonous.

And yet, putting its mendacious hypocrisy on full display, the Left, the media and the Democrats (pardon the triple redundancy) went apoplectic, accusing Trump of treason and violation of the Logan Act.

Even The Huffington Post – no friend of Trump – recognized the hypocrisy by asking what public reaction would have been if Dick Cheney had deleted 30,000 e-mails from a private “homebrew” computer server, claiming they were “personal,” while he was Vice President.

Memo to the lunatic Left: get a grip.  Your heroine, HRC, has a lot more to worry about in terms of treason than does Trump.

And as for the HRC claim that there is no proof that foreign governments or agents hacked into her personal server, not only do we know that even the FBI thinks that such invasions were highly likely, we also now know that there may be proof of that exact invasion in the form of discussions in her e-mails referencing Iranian nuclear scientist Shahram Amiri, who was just executed by the regime in Iran on charges of being a U.S. spy.  Coincidence?  Perhaps… and yet, perhaps not.

Returning, therefore, to the “missing” 30,000 HRC e-mails, we now learn that they may, in fact, be not missing or destroyed at all.  Instead, they may well be intact and in the possession of the National Security Agency, or as it is known in the darkened back alleys of Georgetown, “Spooksville,” or just the “NSA.”

According to former NSA official William Binney – who, like the eligibility “birthers” will be vilified and marginalized by the Left – the e-mails are archived by the NSA and could be accessed by the FBI today… if Comey wanted to do so.  Mr. Binney’s “between-the-lines” message is that if they traveled across the Internet, the NSA has monitored and captured them.

So if that is true, why, you may ask, does Comey not seek them out?  Could it be, as some have suggested, that to do so would contradict Comey’s prior claim that the regime does not engage in full-blown Big Brother surveillance of Americans?  Or might it be that the cache of emails, including those which HRC tried to destroy, includes revelations so horrific that her candidacy for the presidency – let alone her status as a free person – would be threatened or even destroyed?

To reiterate, this is not a suggestion that HRC herself has committed murder.  There are enough uncorroborated conspiracy theories relating to the “unfortunate mishaps” befalling scores of people who in the past have presented real or perceived impediments to the goals and objectives of Team Clinton, including most recently these.

But the dense fog repeatedly coughed up by HRC concerning her “missing” e-mails and the still-unanswered questions about why nothing was done soon enough to try to save the lives of the four valiant Americans who perished in Benghazi present an entirely different factual matrix and backdrop for the proposition that a more sinister plot may well have been involved.

A definitive answer to what the real reason for the Benghazi attack was could well be found in the NSA archives, just waiting for some principled prosecutor or investigator to unearth it.  Given that the current Department of “Justice” is an unlikely candidate to do that, perhaps a new administration – and a new, principled Attorney General – might find the time and backbone to do it.

Obama and Clinton ally and Muslim Brotherhood member Mohamed Morsi was president of Egypt when the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya was attacked by terrorists on September 11, 2012. Morsi had said upon his election that he would make freeing Omar Abdel-Rahman a priority. On July 4, 2013, Morsi was ousted in a popular coup backed by the Egyptian military and has been tried and sentenced to 20 years in prison, then the death penalty.

If among those 30,000 supposedly “destroyed” documents there are found even one or two or more e-mails between and/or among HRC, Huma Abedin, Susan Rice, Cheryl Mills or even BHO himself during the period between June 30, 2012 – when Morsi promised Egyptians that he would try to free Abdel-Rahman from the infidel prison in North Carolina – and September 11, 2012 which mention in any way Ambassador Christopher Stevens, then-Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi and one Omar Abdel-Rahman, then matters could get much worse for HRC.

Ask yourself this: if there had, in fact, been any e-mail exchanges between and/or among HRC, BHO, Huma Abedin, Susan Rice, Cheryl Mills and “intermediaries” of Morsi in the months, weeks, days and hours leading up to the Benghazi attack which might confirm or corroborate a plan for a “quid pro quo” exchange of Ambassador Stevens for the Blind Sheik in order to bolster BHO’s re-election plans, given the results of the attack, would not those e-mails become prime candidates for deletion and destruction if held on an unsecure, homebrew computer server?

Stated otherwise, a simple word-search in the NSA archives of Clinton’s “destroyed” e-mails for terms like “kidnap,” “abduct,” “hostage,” “Morsi,” Rahman,” or “Butner” could be all that is needed to identify relevant e-mails.  And recall again that there is no statute of limitations on murder.

Any takers?



Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.