White House: Clinton’s 'Signature' on Benghazi Docs Doesn't Mean She Knew of Them

(CNSNews.com) – The White House dismissed the signature of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on documents ignoring security concerns in Benghazi, calling it “protocol” for government official “signatures” to appear on documents they did not sign.

“It is standard protocol that cables originating from the department in Washington go out under the authority of the current Secretary of State with their signature, i.e. their name, typed at the bottom,” White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said Wednesday, using his fingers for quote marks when he said “signature.” He continued. “This practice has been in place throughout this administration and across prior administrations, both Democratic and Republican.”

A report by five House committees released Tuesday found that Senior State Department officials, including Clinton, approved reductions in security at the facilities in Benghazi, Libya. The report cites an April 19, 2012, cable bearing Clinton's signature acknowledging a March 28, 2012, request from then-U.S. Ambassador to Libya Gene Cretz for more security, yet allowing further reductions.

read more:

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/white-house-clinton-s-signature...

Views: 1308

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

If the Sec. of State DELEGATES signing authority, she still has the RESPONSIBILITY.  Otherwise, the signature means NOTHING. 

 

Of course, when Democrats are in charge, the only signatures that mean anything are those on their "good intentions" actions.

She has been lying and denying for too long now.....her medical scares were just excuses to buy sympothy...time for this poor excuse of a woman to stand up and face the charges and pay for them. She is a true democrat....she will lie, deny and swear to anything just to win. Its people like her, and Obama that will be the downfall of our once great America....its time to clean house and get rid of these leeches that suck the blood out of all of us. If they want to live in a communist world let them move to Cuba or Russia and get the hell out of our beautiful America.

She's an attorney.  She's a harden politician.  She should have known better.  The White House can come up with every excuse in the book and then some...she's still at fault!  

But then, again, if she knew... obama knew...they ALL knew!  A gun running, phony kidnapping gone horribly wrong!  

One thing Obama did NOT lie about... his administration IS transparent.  Unfortunately, for us, others suffer and die from his transparency. 

What's the use of having a Secretary of State if anyone can sign off on anything for her and without her knowing. Is America going to fall for this overreaching lie?

Work harder, dig deeper, look under every rock, follow all leads,
sniff her out----She's guilty of something.

Bradley... at the very minimum she is guilty of malfeasance in office. 

Her inept  leadership is clearly demonstrated by her claims that she permitted others to sign documents for her without properly vetting that person or supervising them.  She is incapable of taking responsibility and when she claims to take responsibility she immediately expects to avoids the consequences for her failures. 

This woman is unworthy of holding high office... Under her guidance Egyptian a former US ally under President Mubarak's leadership was destabilized and replaced by a radical Muslim Brotherhood government.  Under her leadership the State Department destabilized Libya and replaced a somewhat moderate Islamic government, with another radical Islamic regime... She prompted events leading up to Bengahzi and the gun running fiasco in Syria. She is behind the attempt to destabilize Syria but unlike Egypt her foreign policy has been unable to do so.  America may will be coaxed into using direct military force to replace the Syria's government with another Muslim Brotherhood regime. 

The entire middle East has been destabilized by Sec. Clinton's foreign policy ventures... she has created a crucible for Islamic extremism to flourish under her regime.  Her policies are giving rise to a unified Islamic Caliphate in the Mid-East... hardly in the interest of the US or our allies.

 

Ron---I suppose I shouldn't be so ficious in here, but being so
seems to help me maintain a little humor, but yes, you sited
everything correctly about what Hillary is guilty of and should
one day be held accountable.

I might add that Obama should be held accountable for Hillary's
lack of performance as he says the buck stops with him. One
more item added to the 95 impeachable offenses already
pending against him you know?

Come on GOP, get this witch.

Hillary, and BILL NEVER HAD SEX WITH THAT WOMAN.

I suspect Obama has something on her. Only reason i can think of as to why she did not fight harder for the presidency. If this is the case he may want her to be the next Pres so he can continue to get cover.

You may be right.... everyone of them has something to hide.  BUT if she became president (GOD forbid) she'd throw that skinny muslim under the bus faster than he threw her!  And the ones that "crossed" her...would find themselves in deep trouble!   She'd make Valerie Jarrett's remarks look like a kindergarten rhyme. 

       I wonder who thinks this BS up ? If she didn't know of any security concerns , how and why is her signature on the documents . This woman who is allegedly a lawyer would or should know enough not to sign anything with out reading it . And in a court of law , ignorance is no defense , she should know that also . But then again we are dealing with a Clinton , they can lie with the best of them .

       She , Hillary , needs to be brought up on charges of willful dereliction of duty right along with Obozo who just up and went to bed as American Citizens were left to be murdered .

RSS

LIGHTER SIDE

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

Political Cartoons by Mike Lester

ALERT ALERT

Newt Says What The Rest Of Us Are Thinking:
It’s Time To Throw Peter Strzok In Jail

Disgraced FBI special agent Peter Strzok, a senior member of the bureau who gained notoriety in recent months over his anti-Trump text messages to a colleague, was grilled for nearly 10 hours during a joint congressional committee hearing on Thursday.

At issue was Strzok’s anti-Trump texts to former FBI lawyer and lover Lisa Page that coincided with his leading of the investigations into both former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s private email server scandal and the alleged Trump/Russia 2016 election collusion, as well as his involvement in the subsequent Robert Mueller special counsel probe.

The hearing proved to be a heated battle, as Strzok displayed an arrogant smugness in defiance of pointed questions from Republicans that he largely danced around, while Democrats sought to upend and undermine the entire hearing with a plethora of interruptions, parliamentary maneuvers and outright praise for the man who helped let Clinton off the hook while ferociously targeting Trump.

Former House speaker and presidential candidate Newt Gingrich was less than impressed with Strzok’s performance and cooperation in the hearing and suggested during an appearance on Fox Business that the FBI agent should be held in contempt of Congress.

“I think they have to move to hold him in contempt and throw him in jail,” Gingrich said of Congress and Strzok.

“This is a person who is willfully standing up and refusing to appear as a congressional witness and he was a government employee at the time,” he continued.

“He has every obligation to inform the legislative branch, and I don’t think they have any choice except to move a motion of contempt because he is fundamentally — and so is his girlfriend (Page) — they’re both fundamentally in violation of the entire constitutional process,” he added.

Page had been subpoenaed to appear before Congress on Wednesday but refused to appear, saying she’d been unable to review relevant documents prior to the scheduled hearing, a closed-door hearing that has since been rescheduled for Friday.

Gingrich was not the only one who thought Strzok deserved to be held in contempt of Congress, as House Judiciary Committee chairman Bob Goodlatte informed Strzok that he remained at risk of such during the hearing, according to The Daily Caller.

That warning from Goodlatte came after Strzok had refused to answer a straightforward question posed by House Oversight Committee chairman Trey Gowdy, regarding how many people Strzok had personally interviewed between a specific set of dates in relation to the Clinton email investigation.

“Mr. Strzok, please be advised that you can either comply with the committee’s direction to answer the question or refuse to do so,” Goodlatte stated. “The latter of which will place you in risk of a contempt citation and potential criminal liability. Do you understand that? The question is directed to the witness.”

Strzok still refused to answer, citing instructions received from his counsel and the FBI to not answer certain questions on certain topics.

Goodlatte replied, “Mr. Strzok, in a moment we will continue with the hearing, but based on your refusal to answer the question, at the conclusion of the day we will be recessing the hearing and you will be subject to recall to allow the committee to consider proceeding with a contempt citation.”

It is unclear if Goodlatte and the committee ultimately did consider a contempt citation for Strzok following the contentious hearing, nor is it clear if Page will be held in contempt for blowing off her subpoenaed appearance on Wednesday.

Hopefully Congress will follow through on the threats of contempt followed by actual jail time against Strzok and Page in response to their uncooperative behavior and failure to appear when subpoenaed, if only to ensure that future witnesses called before Congress for sensitive or contentious hearings don’t think they can get away with the same sort of behavior.

TEA PARTY TARGET

Cops Sent To Seize Veteran’s Guns Without A Warrant, He Refused To Turn Them Over

“No one from the state was going to take my firearms without due process,” says Leonard Cottrell, after successfully staving off law enforcement and the courts from confiscating his firearms. Cottrell, an Iraq War veteran, was at work when he received a phone call from his wife. The cops were there, busting in to take his guns away. It all started after a casual conversation his son had at school.

Ammoland reports:

Police said their visit was sparked by a conversation that Leonard Cottrell Jr.’s 13-year-old son had had with another student at the school. Cottrell said he was told his son and the other student were discussing security being lax and what they would have to do to escape a school shooting at Millstone Middle School.

The conversation was overheard by another student, who went home and told his parents, and his mother panicked. The mom then contacted the school, which contacted the State Police, according to Cottrell.

The visit from the troopers came around 10 p.m. on June 14, 2018, Cottrell said, a day after Gov. Phil Murphy signed several gun enforcement bills into law.

After several hours, Cottrell said police agreed not to take the guns but to allow him to move them to another location while the investigation continued.

“They had admitted several times that my son made no threat to himself or other students or the school or anything like that,” he said.

Cottrell said he made it very clear to the police that he was “not going to willingly give up my constitutional rights where there’s no justifiable cause, no warrants, no nothing.”

The troopers searched his son’s room and found nothing, Cottrell said.

“To appease everybody, I had my firearms stored someplace else,” he said. “That way, during the course of the investigation, my son doesn’t have access to them and it’s on neutral ground and everything and everybody’s happy.”

“In the Garden State, the usual approach is to confiscate first and ask questions later, and victims of this approach often don’t know their rights. ‎In this case, the victim pushed back and confiscation was avoided — but the circumstances surrounding the incident are outrageous. A student expressing concern over lack of security is not a reason to send police to the student’s home — but it might be a reason to send police to the school to keep students and teachers safe” said Scott L. Bach, executive director of the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs and a member of the NRA board of directors.

NJ.com adds:

Cottrell, a disabled U.S. Army veteran who served three tours during “Operation Iraqi Freedom,” owns a shotgun and a pistol. He has all the correct permits to own the firearms, he said, and predominately uses the shotgun to hunt.

He said his wife allowed the officers to enter the home, and with her permission, they searched his son’s room — but they did not find any weapons, he said. The officers, he said, didn’t have a warrant but still wanted to take his guns. Cottrell wouldn’t let them.

“No one from the state was going to take my firearms without due process,” he said Thursday.

He said the attempted seizure resulted because of a new law Gov. Phil Murphy signed into law that makes it easier for police to confiscate guns when someone in the state poses a threat to themselves or others. The law is part of a broader statewide effort to make New Jersey’s gun laws even tougher amid the national outcry for more gun control in the wake of the school shooting in Parkland, Florida.

Cottrell said the officers “danced around the issue” when he confronted them about the new law.

A New Jersey State Police spokesman declined to answer questions about whether this incident had anything to do with the new gun laws.

In an email, Sgt. First Class Jeff Flynn said, “Troopers responded to Mr. Cottrell’s residence in reference to the report of a possible school threat. Based on their investigation, it was determined that Mr. Cottrell’s weapons did not need to be seized.”

David Codrea, writing for Ammoland, further added:

To appease everybody, I had my firearms stored someplace else,” New Jersey gun owner and Army veteran Leonard Cottrell Jr. told New Jersey 101.5 after a June 14 visit from State Police,. “That way, during the course of the investigation, my son doesn’t have access to them and it’s on neutral ground and everything and everybody’s happy.”

Cottrell was recalling state troopers showing up at his door to confiscate firearms after his 13-year-old son was overheard discussing lax school safety with a friend.

Indoctrinated by a pervasive snitch culture — one that never seems to deter the blatantly obvious demonic nutjobs — the eavesdropping student told his parents, who told school administrators, who in turn called the cops. (Note “If you see something, say something” carries risks of its own – if you report the wrong person, you could end up smeared as a “hater.”)

“Cottrell said he made it very clear to the police that he was ‘not going to willingly give up my constitutional rights where there’s no justifiable cause, no warrants, no nothing,’” the report continued. Despite that, his home is now a “gun free zone” and that has been publicized by the media. He has, in fact, willingly ceded those rights, and by his own words in order to make authorities “happy.”

Before judging him for that, consider the environment that is New Jersey. Then consider the overwhelming force the state can bring to bear, and its predisposition to using it, especially if it’s to enforce citizen disarmament. It’s easy to anonymously declare “Molon Labe” on the internet. In meatspace, resistance is more effective when the aggressor doesn’t get to dictate the time and place, especially if that place is your home and you have family inside.

Appeasing gun-grabbers, generally couched as “compromise,” is impossible. It’s like throwing a scrap of flesh to a circling pack of jackals and expecting them to be sated and leave you alone — instead of sensing opportunity and fear, and moving in closer.

© 2018   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service