What Difference Does It Make Indeed. Smoking Gun Email Proves What We Already Knew. Benghazi Video Lie Started With Hillary.

hillary clinton -what difference does it make

We know that Hillary Clinton sent Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens to Benghazi. Victoria Toensing, attorney for whistleblower Gregory Hicks told us that a year ago on The Teri O’Brien Show.

Last month, also on The Teri O’Brien Show, former CBS investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson confirmed that Gregory Hicks had also told her the same thing. Having sent the ambassador there, even though the British ambassador had nearly been kidnapped weeks before, and our own facility had been attacked twice, Mrs. Clinton had some CYA to do. It began while the attack was still underway. From ABC News:

A still-classified State Department e-mail says that one of the first responses from the White House to the Benghazi attack was to contact YouTube to warn of the “ramifications” of allowing the posting of an anti-Islamic video, according to Rep. Darrell Issa, the Republican chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.
The memo suggests that even as the attack was still underway — and before the CIA began the process of compiling talking points on its analysis of what happened — the White House believed it was in retaliation for a controversial video.

Ambassador Stevens after the attack in Benghazi on 9/11/12.

Ambassador Stevens after the attack in Benghazi on 9/11/12.

The subject line of the e-mail, which was sent at 9:11 p.m. Eastern Time on the night of the attack, is “Update on Response to actions – Libya.” The e-mail was written hours before the attack was over.
Issa has asked the White House to declassify and release the document. In the meantime he has inserted a sentence from the e-mail in the Congressional Record.
“White House is reaching out to U-Tube [sic] to advice ramification of the posting of the Pastor Jon video,” the e-mail reads, according to Issa.
Issa’s full statement can be read here.
Asked about the document, a senior White House official told ABC News it demonstrates that the White House genuinely believed the video sparked the attack all along, a belief that turned out to be incorrect.

“We actually think this proves what we’ve said. We were concerned about the video, given all the protests in region,” the official said. And the intelligence community “was also concerned about the video.”
Issa has an entirely different view. He contends the document contradicts the White House assertion that it was the CIA who first pinned blame for the attack on protests in response to the anti-Islamic video.

“The e-mail shows the White House had hurried to settle on a false narrative — one at odds with the conclusions reached by those on the ground — before Americans were even out of harm’s way or the intelligence community had made an impartial examination of available evidence,” Issa said.
Issa is calling on the White House to release an unclassified version of the document.

So Hillary was setting up her cover story the night of the attack, and as we just learned a couple of weeks ago, thanks to a 3rd party law suit, the White House fell in line.

We still don’t know where Barack Obama was when the State Department was the phone to YouTube, and it does make a difference. You go, Rep. Trey Gowdy!

The Teri O'Brien Show

book