Washington Post: "ABC News’s Diane Sawyer destroys Hillary Rodham Clinton on Benghazi"

ABC US News | ABC Celebrity News

Erik Wemple at the Washington Post has this analysis of Clinton's interview last night on ABC News:

A standard defense for Hillary Rodham Clinton when facing questions about Benghazi, Libya, has been to cite her commissioning of a report from the State Department’s Accountability Review Board (ARB), which took a deep look at the attacks that claimed the lives of four U.S. personnel on Sept. 11, 2012. In testimony before Congress in January 2013, Clinton said: “I hurried to appoint the Accountability Review Board led by Ambassador Pickering and Admiral Mullen so we could more fully understand from objective, independent examination, what went wrong and how to fix it. I have accepted every one of their recommendations.” 

In an interview with Clinton that aired last night on ABC News, anchor Diane Sawyer threw the ARB right back in the face of the former secretary of state. The two tangled over the preparedness of the U.S. diplomatic installation in Benghazi for a terrorist attack. In defending her work on this front, Clinton stressed that she had delegated the particulars of security to the experts in the field. “I’m not equipped to sit and look at blueprints to determine where the blast walls need to be, where the reinforcements need to be. That’s why we hire people who have that expertise,” said Clinton . . . 

Sensing an opening, Sawyer cited the document that Clinton herself has so often cited: “This is the ARB: the mission was far short of standards; weak perimeter; incomplete fence; video surveillance needed repair. They said it’s a systemic failure.”
Clinton replied, “Well, it was with respect to that compound.” . . .  

Sawyer’s slow and steady line of questioning on Benghazi security prompted Clinton to utter this self-contradictory and sure-to-be-repeated statement: “I take responsibility, but I was not making security decisions.”

Only 37 percent of Americans trust the federal government

These results are from a new Fox News poll.  One thing that should be explained is that Democrats trust in government goes up when there is a Democratic president and Republican trust is up when there is a Republican.  That explains the different results for Republicans and Democrats.  Interestingly, despite all the scandals with the IRS, NSA, EPA, AP, State Department, Benghazi, VA, and others, the level of trust in the federal government is actually higher now than last year or in 2010.

Obama thinks that IRS and Benghazi scandals are "phony", implies all the other ones are phony also

From yesterday's press briefing at the White House by Jay Carney:

Mr. Knoller. 

Q    Jay, in his speech again yesterday, President Obama mentioned the phony scandals that are part of an endless parade of distractions.  Can you tell us what phony scandals he’s talking about? 

MR. CARNEY:  I think we all remember a few weeks ago when Washington was consumed with a variety of issues that, while in some cases significant, there was an effort underway to turn them into partisan scandals.  I don’t think anybody here would doubt that.  And what we’ve seen as time has passed and more facts have become known -- whether it’s about the attacks in Benghazi and the talking points, or revelations about conduct at the IRS -- that attempts to turn this into a scandal have failed. 

And when it comes to the IRS, as I said the other morning, the President made very clear that he will -- that he wants the new leadership there to take action to correct improper conduct, and that is happening and he expects results. 

What some in Congress have failed to do despite many attempts is to provide any evidence -- because there is none -- that that activity was in any way known by, or directed by, the White House, or was even partisan or political.  As testimony has shown that I’ve seen produced publicly in the press -- although not by the Republican chairman of the committee -- self-identified Republicans who participated in the reviews of these applications for tax-exempt status clearly denied that there was any -- and this is just them saying this -- that there was any partisan or political motivation to what they were doing. 

That doesn't excuse the conduct, doesn't say that it’s the right thing to do.  It means that we have to address poor performance as poor performance, and reject efforts to turn it into yet another partisan political football. 

And I think our views -- and I would wax poetic on it if you want -- our views on the Benghazi issue are well known, and I think that other issues fall into that. 

Q    So you mentioned two -- the IRS and Benghazi. 

MR. CARNEY:  Well, I’m not going to catalogue -- again, I think there was a period where there was -- a lot more energy and focus was paid by some in Congress as well as in the media on issues that, while important, are not of the highest priority to the American people, and they were not scandals. . . .

Apparently all the other four or so recent scandals are also phony (see here, here, and here), but they don't even rate being mentioned.

CBS confirms that Sharyl Attkisson's computer was hacked several times by very sophisticated source

Here we have a reporter's computers (both work and personal) hacked last fall by a very sophisticated source right around the time that she releases a news report using leaked information on Benghazi.  From The Hill newspaper:

CBS News said Friday it has confirmed that a computer used by one of its reporters was hacked by an unknown party several times in 2012, and that it’s taking steps to investigate who is responsible for the attack. 

“A cyber security firm hired by CBS News has determined through forensic analysis that Sharyl Attkisson’s computer was accessed by an unauthorized, external, unknown party on multiple occasions late in 2012,” a statement from CBS reads in part. “CBS News is taking steps to identify the responsible party and their method of access.” 

CBS said a party remotely accessed Attkisson’s accounts and “executed commands that appeared to involve search and exfiltration of data.” The breach was covered up using “sophisticated methods to remove all possible indications of unauthorized activity, and alter system times to cause further confusion,” according to CBS. . . .

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air.com notes that this hacking coincided with a news report that she did "relying on anonymous military sources that called into question the Obama administration’s claim that they couldn’t have responded in time to assist in the attack."

Caddell, Schoen, and LeBoutillier provide an interesting discussion of the politics of the Obama Scandals

Some of the points: The scandals seem to be hurting Democrats across the board.  The Obama administration seems to be willing to do whatever is necessary to go after their political enemies.  Caddell: "Big government as a threat and big government at its worse."  People are worried that these government abuses could impact their own lives.

-- Caddell and Schoen worked in White Houses and Caddell believes that you don't go to the White House 157 and not have politics going one.

Caddell: "Who was he meeting with.  You have to be a fool(!) to believe that a head of an agency that is separate is meeting in the White House and not doing politics."


Others who went to the White House frequently.
43 Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
48 Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner


-- It doesn't sound as if a special prosecutor will be appointed.

-- Holder can hold on in the short term.

UPDATE: Obama appears to be coming down strongly in Holder's corner.  Politico has this headline on Wednesday, June 5th: "Dark skies brighten for Holder"

How the White House Scandals have altered the gun control debate

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Indecision Political Humor,The Daily Show on Facebook

Stewart: Well, congratulations, President Barack Obama.  Conspiracy theorists, who generally can survive in anaerobic environments, have just had an algae bloom dropped on their fucking heads.  Thus removing the last arrow in your pro-governance quiver.  Skepticism about your opponents.  'Gun control. Why can’t we have background checks?' 

Roll tape. 

Cruz: “I believe it would put us inexorably on the path to a national gun registry." 

Stewart: “Oh, right, a national gun registry. And the government is going to overreach and there’s going to be a registry. And the government’s even capable of that kind of overreach. And they’re going to take your guns away from you.” 

CBS news report: “The Internal Revenue Service admitted today that some of its employees targeted conservative political groups.” 

Stewart: “Mother****ers!  This has, in one seismic moment, shifted the burden of proof from the tin-foil-behatted [conservatives] to the government.”

Joe Scarborough:  “I have been saying for months now, and everybody knows this, that I believe in background checks.  I believe that after Newtown, after Chicago, after . . . , we need background checks.  My argument has been: don't worry the government will never create a national registry.  The government is never going to create a national registry. . . .  My argument is less persuasive today because of these scandals.  Because People will say, ‘Hey, if they do this with the IRS, asking people what books you read, then how can I trust them with information about my Second Amendment rights?’  This is devastating, this IRS scandal is devastating.”

Piers Morgan: "I have had some of the pro-gun lobbyists on here saying to me, the reason that we have to be armed is because of tyranny from our own government.  I have always laughed at them.  I have always said don't be ridiculous, your own government won't turn itself on you.  But actually when you look at this, it has nothing to do with guns, it is vaguely tyrannical behavior by the American government.  I think that what the IRS did is bordering on tyrannical behavior.  I think that what the Department of Justice to the AP bordering on tyrannical behavior."

I personally don't make the tyranny argument.  I am not saying that the argument is wrong, but just that I don't feel comfortable arguing about issues that I can't measure and test empirically.  My argument has been that background checks, as they are actually working, would be counterproductive.  Well, it appears that argument has actually be very persuasive to people who I probably could never reach with the type of empirical arguments that I would normally raise.

UPDATE: Democrats in congress are admitting the obvious here, that these scandals might prevent new laws that Obama is pushing.  From The Hill newspaper:

Speaking Monday on MSNBC, Rep. Sandy Levin (D-Mich.) said the multiple inquiries into the conduct of IRS employees could undermine the push for immigration reform if the oversight effort becomes politicized.  

"The difficulty of turning this into too much of a political effort will be, it will undermine other efforts like tax reform, like immigration action, like work on gun violence issues," said Levin, who is the ranking member on the tax writing House Ways and Means Committee. . . .

Judge Jeanine Pirro nails it on the Benghazi whistleblowers

This discussion by her is well worth your time (click here for link).

Joe Klein: The problem was Hillary's staff

Klein is in a bind.  He doesn't want to blame Hillary Clinton for the Benghazi mess, so he has to blame her staff.  But even then he has to acknowledge that these are the types of people that Hillary attracts.  The problem isn't for the 2016 campaign that Klein acknowledges, it is the risk of her as president.  From Time magazine:

I’m not so sure that Nuland’s reference to her “buildings (sic) leadership” means Hillary Clinton. There is a cloud of highly defensive–sometimes to the point of weirdly paranoid–advisers who have always surrounded Clinton. (Think Sid Blumenthal, back in the day). It’s part of the DNA of Hillaryland. In my experience, this over-protectiveness often works to Clinton’s disadvantage. And it will be a real detriment to her presidential campaign, should she choose to launch one.  

I’m not sure that Clinton herself forced the talking points massage; but “Hillary Clinton”–the bubble that surrounded the Secretary–may well have. . . .

Even Some on MSNBC think that Benghazi looks bad for Obama

Obama's whistleblower problem

Or this from the NY Post:

The US diplomat who was second in command in Libya during the fatal attack on the Benghazi consulate fought back tears yesterday when he told lawmakers about his colleagues’ final moments — and said he was “stunned” by administration claims it was sparked by a spontaneous protest. 

Gregory Hicks, the first person to testify to Congress who was on the ground in Libya during the fateful night of the Sept. 11, 2012 siege, told a House committee that he was incredulous just five days later when UN Ambassador Susan Rice said on Sunday talk shows that the assault was not a terrorist attack. 

“My jaw dropped,” Hicks said. “I was embarrassed.” . . .

After listening to the testimony above or reading reports such as in the New York Post, please tell me how that is consistent with this administration claim.  From an earlier report on ABC News:

On Tuesday, both President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry addressed claims being made by House Oversight and Foreign Affairs Committee leaders that the administration is impeding the Congressional testimony of State Department and CIA employees who survived the attack. 

“I’m not familiar with this notion that anybody’s been blocked from testifying,” said the president. “What I’ve been very clear about from the start is that our job with respect to Benghazi has been to find out exactly what happened, to make sure that U.S. embassies, not just in the Middle East but around the world, are safe and secure and to bring those who carried it out to justice.” . . .

Instead it looks like Chaffetz was the one who was correct regarding the Benghazi whistleblowers.

“Absolutely, and more than one,” Chaffetz said on “Fox News Sunday” when asked if the Obama administration had blocked potential witnesses. “There are people who want to testify that have been suppressed. …They’re scared to death of what the State Department is doing with them.” . . .

The Washington Post's Dana Milbank had this summary:

Gregory Hicks, the No. 2 U.S. diplomat in Libya the night Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans were killed, was to be the star witness for Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), the man leading the probe of the Obama administration’s handling of the attack on the diplomatic outpost in Benghazi.  But despite Issa’s incautious promise that the hearing’s revelations would be “damaging” to Hillary Rodham Clinton, Hicks didn’t lay a glove on the former secretary of state Wednesday. . . . 

Suppose that we take everything that Milbank says about the facts are correct, that no direct evidence implicated Clinton.  You still have the problem that Clinton's number 2 person was direct implicated.  If this was a Republican administration, would Milbank not be asking for further investigation to see how high things actually run?

But the problem goes beyond Benghazi.  See for example this article on Politico:

The watchdog who tracks the billions of taxpayer dollars spent to rebuild Afghanistan says government officials have tried to silence him because they think he's embarrassing the White House and Afghan President Hamid Karzai by pointing out the waste and fraud. 

John Sopko, the special inspector general for Afghanistan reconstruction, used a speech at the New America Foundation on Wednesday to blast government “bureaucrats”' who have told him to stop publicizing damning audits that detail case after case of waste, corruption and mismanagement of rebuilding efforts in Afghanistan. Some government officials have even complained that they aren't allowed to pre-screen or edit his reports, he said.  

“Since my appointment by the president last summer, I have been surprised to learn how many people both in and out of the government do not understand the role of an independent inspector general,” Sopko said. . . .

UPDATE: As David Limbaugh correctly notes, another example is Gerald Walpin (see here).

Judge Andrew Napolitano: "Lying to Congress carries the same criminal liability and the same punishment as lying under oath to Congress. I'm not suggesting that Mrs. Clinton lied, but I'm saying that a case could be made out, either legally in a courtroom if a prosecutor wanted to, and certainly politically in a public sphere should she decide to seek higher office."

White House stonewalling on not letting Benghazi whistleblowers to speak out

So much for the much promised Obama transparency.  The video is available here.

Shocking Panetta testimony about Obama's lack of role in Benghazi response

This testimony indicates that Obama was virtually completely disengaged from what was happening in Bengahzi.  After a brief initial discussion, the president left operational details, including knowledge of what resources were available to help the Americans under siege, "up to us." So how does this shocking testimony fit in with Obama's assertion here:

"If people don't think that we did everything we can to make sure that we save the lives of folks who I sent there, and who are carrying out missions on behalf of the United States, then you don't know how our Defense Department thinks or our State Department things or our CIA thinks. Their number one priority is obviously to protect American lives. That's what our job is.  I can tell you that immediately upon finding out that our folks were in danger, that my orders to my national security team were, do whatever we need to do to make sure they're safe. And that's the same order I would give any time that I see Americans are in danger, whether they are civilian or military."

UPDATE:  Most presidents would at least give the appearance that they were in the loop during these events.

He said Thursday on Fox News that "thus far the White House has delayed, denied, deceived and stonewalled and this has to come to an end. He has to account for his leadership."
During the hearing, Graham questioned why there weren't subsequent follow-up conversations with the president.
"It lasted almost eight hours ... did the president show any curiosity?" Graham asked.
Panetta said there was "no question" Obama "was concerned about American lives."
"With all due respect," Graham responded, "I don't believe that's a credible statement if he never called and asked you, 'are we helping these people?'"  . . . 

Is this possibly right?: "White House 'Held Affair Over Petraeus's Head' For Favorable Testimony On Benghazi"

It is very hard to believe that even the Obama administration would do this.  It is also hard to believe that this claim could be proved since it is not in Petraeus' interest to acknowledge that he was blackmailed into providing false evidence to Congress.  However, if Krauthammer happens to be correct, it will indicate that the Obama administration thought that they were going to lose the election if they didn't hide the information on the Benghazi attack.

Smoking gun cable found leading up to Benghazi attack

Unbelievable.

CATHERINE HERRIDGE, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Well, the status of the cable is that I really believe, having read it, that it is the smoking gun warning here. You've got this emergency meeting in Benghazi less than a month before the attack. At that briefing, the people are told that there are 10 -- 10 -- Islamist militias and al Qaeda groups in Benghazi. 

The consulate cannot sustain a coordinated attack and that they need extra help. And this information goes directly to the office of the secretary of state, Hillary Clinton. So again, you're got the culpability of the State Department. This is a very specific warning that they are in trouble, they need help and they see an attack on the horizon.

Supposedly, the Obama administration refused to send support to help out the Ambassador in Bengahazi because they were trying to get help from the 17th February Brigade, which was supposed to be protecting our embassy.  

HERRIDGE: It's very detailed. There can be no doubt that this is really a cry for help from the people on the ground. They also talk at length that they think the 17th February Brigade -- this is the Libyan militia that's supposed to be friendly to the United States that's really tasked with being the police force in Benghazi, has been infiltrated by our enemies. 

It says the 17th February Brigade is not sharing information with the Americans anymore. So that's us. And we had information right after the attack that this brigade just kind of melted away during the attack. They were nowhere to be found. . . .