“YOU OWE IT TO THE NATION”
by Joseph DeMaio, ©2016
(Sep. 10, 2016) — [Editor’s Note: The following is a continuation of the first part of this piece found here.]
With the foregoing in mind, Question #1 arises: did the FBI agents ask Blumenthal at his January 7, 2016 interview what the text of the June 24, 2012 e-mail meant? Question #2: did they ask him what was meant by “MB/SCAF” in the e-mail subject line? Question #3: did they ask him what was meant by the words “inside deal” in the e-mail subject line? Question #4: did the FBI ask any of the same questions of HRC during her July 2, 2016 interview?
In the absence of answers to those questions, one is left to freely speculate. Moreover, while the answers might be gleaned from the contents of still-missing FBI footnotes to the “notes” or an additional 30 Benghazi-related e-mails recently “discovered,” that potential remains uncertain. Accordingly, until such answers surface publicly, let us continue to hypothesize.
The subject line of the June 24, 2012 e- mail – “latest, latest intel on MB/SCAF inside deal” – could mean many things. Without knowing exactly what the text of the e-mail is, one can only make educated guesses. As noted, perhaps the text is among the redacted sections, footnotes or pages of the FBI “notes” document. Perhaps the text is known, but entirely innocuous.
If innocuous, however, it is unclear why the FBI would have included it in its examination of HRC’s mishandling of “confidential” and “classified” e-mails. Because HRC stated to the FBI that it was a “confusing time” in Egypt and that the State Department was trying to obtain all of the intelligence it could on the situation in that country, it seems reasonable to conclude that the e-mail had something to do with the election of Mohamed Morsi.
As already noted, Morsi – a member of the radical Islamist Muslim Brotherhood and whose wife is “close friends” with HRC and her aide, Huma Abedin – had been declared the winner of a runoff election to become President of Egypt on the same day, June 24, 2012.
Missing from most mainstream media reports at the time, however, is the fact that on that date, Morsi was declared the winner by the head of the military junta that had taken control of Egypt prior to his election in the interim after it had assumed governmental power in February 2011 following the resignation of prior Egyptian President Hosni Mubarek. That military junta is known as the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces, and in English translation is usually identified by its acronym: “SCAF.”
So, if “SCAF” can be assumed to be a reference to the Egyptian military junta, might the letters “MB” be a reference to Morsi’s political affiliation, the “Muslim Brotherhood” or even “Morsi Benghazi?” Might it also be possible that the “inside deal” referenced in the e-mail related to a secret, coded agreement that had been reached between the Muslim Brotherhood, through Morsi, and the SCAF? And what might such an agreement have been?
Recall that well prior to Morsi’s actual assumption of the Egyptian presidency, he and his Muslim Brotherhood associates had been pressuring BHO and American officials to release Omar Abdel al-Rahman, the “Blind Sheikh.” Is it so far-fetched to hypothesize that Morsi sought to strike a “deal” with the military in the SCAF to “allow” Morsi’s Muslim Brotherhood “associates” in Benghazi to “gently” abduct Ambassador Stevens, holding and protecting him in a “safe place” until a swap for the Blind Sheikh could take place just prior to the 2012 election in the United States?
Is it unreasonable to hypothesize that Morsi might have proposed such a plan to the SCAF, marketing it as a “win-win” plan to be handled as a covert “inside deal?” BHO – eager to cozy up to Egypt and its new Muslim Brotherhood President – would be seen as the hero to the American electorate on the eve of a crucial election by saving the life of Ambassador Stevens, and Abdel-Rahman would be returned to Egypt… for whatever fate or purpose SCAF determined would be appropriate. And with assurances having been received from “highly-placed” individuals in the United States that security at the Benghazi facility – provided by local Libyan militia personnel under State Department contract – would be “minimized” and that any attempts to rush to the aid of Ambassador Stevens while the abduction proceeded would be ordered to stand down…, what could possibly go wrong?
Can this theory be proven? That is highly unlikely, particularly against the backdrop of BleachBit-eradicated e-mails; BlackBerry phones hammered to smithereens; multiple mobile devices, Clinton Foundation Apple MacBooks and backup thumb-drives “lost,” whether in the mail or in the Potomac; redactions upon redactions of relevant information the disclosure of which might risk “circumvention of the law”; the list goes on and on.
But can the theory be debunked or disproven? The answer to that question is yes, it can be disproven, but only if HRC and her minions come clean with what really happened at Benghazi and what, exactly, the “inside deal” was between “MB” and “SCAF.” Do not hold your breath for a quick response from the HRC camp.
On the other hand, note that Part 2 of the FBI notes document states (p. 2) that on July 1, 2012 – eight days after she received the June 24, 2012 “MB/SCAF inside deal” e-mail from Blumenthal – HRC apparently sent to BHO an e-mail with the subject line: “FW: Congratulations!” After examining the e-mail shown to her by the FBI during her interview, she claimed that she had “received no particular guidance as to how she should use the President’s email address [redacted]@who.eop.gov…,” adding that “[s]ince the foregoing e-mail was sent from Russia, [she] stated she must have sent it from the plane.”
What, pray tell, might the subject line “Congratulations!” refer to? And what did the text of that message contain?
On July 1, 2012, HRC (and presumably Blumenthal) knew what was in the June 24, 2012 e-mail. If, hypothetically speaking, of course, the prior e-mail contained coded terms confirming that an “inside deal” had been reached between Morsi and the Egyptian SCAF to allow the “safe” abduction of Ambassador Stevens – whose itinerary placing him in Benghazi on the upcoming September 11, 2012 was also known – for eventual swapping for Abdel-Rahman, then it is not unreasonable to speculate that confirmation of such a “deal” might be communicated to BHO and/or HRC and/or others by using a term such as “success,” “touchdown” or perhaps even… “congratulations!”
Again, the “botched kidnapping” hypothesis is, admittedly, a bit of a stretch if for no reason other than if proved true, it would confirm that BHO and/or HRC and/or Morsi and/or an unknown number of their aides were willing to endanger – and ultimately sacrifice – the lives of four Americans for political gain, and then work furiously to cover their tracks when the plan failed. No one, not even the most fervent pro-HRC, anti-Trump liberal, would want to believe that either BHO or HRC would be parties to such a diabolical, treacherous and criminal plot.
On the other hand, as BHO has said in the past, hailing back to his Chicago roots and paraphrasing a line from the movie, The Untouchables: “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun.” Not exactly consistent with his anti-gun position. The rest of the line from The Untouchables, which BHO may (or may not) have plagiarized: “They put one of ours in the hospital, we put one of theirs in the morgue.” Despite HRC’s despicable claim that “we lost no one in Libya…,” there were four Americans who were put into a morgue before returning to America.
Memo to the electorate: do the right thing next November 8. You owe it to the nation.
Sharon Rondeau has operated The Post & Email since April 2010, focusing on the Obama birth certificate investigation and other government corruption news. She has reported prolifically on constitutional violations within Tennessee’s prison and judicial systems.