Conclusions on the Benghazi Hearing

Conclusions on Secretary Hillary Clinton’s Testimony During the Benghazi Hearing

As I watched many hours of the Benghazi Hearing on 22 October 2015, I started to do a content analysis on Secretary Clinton’s statements underlining the inconsistencies in her credibility. However there was just too much to break it down. I have provided a few examples. Also below my comments you will see conclusions of the hearing compiled by Sharon Roberts.

As an example of what I saw and heard during the hearing, HRC flipped the bird three times during approximately 10 minutes that Rep. Peter Roskam was asking her questions.

There were a number of occasions when she was asked yes or no questions but did not answer as such. Instead she gave lengthy responses without answering what was asked. Rep. Mike Pompeo reminded her that the questions were simple yes or no questions, and that he would give her a chance to elaborate but if she could stick to answering the questions it would be appreciated.

This is an example of listening carefully to exactly what is said, or not said. If the question asked isn’t being answered, why is that?

When asked if Ambassador Stevens was called when they learned of the attacks HRC responded that they tried to call him.

That may seem like a nit picky example. I am certain most people know what the word “try” means. (I tried to lose weight. I tried to stay awake). Nevertheless, it gets used frequently and often goes in one ear and out the other. That is because most people don’t pay attention to what is being said.

Her language tells us that she did not tell the American people everything she knew at the time. She stated they only “tried” to phone him. A better and more positive statement would have been to say, “Yes. We called him, repeatedly, and it went to voice mail.”

Do or do not. There is no try. – Yoda

There were other inconsistencies however, I want to get onto the conclusions compiled by Sharon Roberts below:

1. Proof emerged that Secretary Clinton, Susan Rice, and the others were guilty of a political spin (re: video) on Benghazi which was to ensure Obama won the Presidency 56 days later. The day after Benghazi, Sec. Clinton sent her daughter an email saying Benghazi was a terrorist attack by Al Quaeda. Clinton also was honest with the head of Egypt.
2. 600 requests for security came from Benghazi. Clinton claimed they never reached her.
3. Clinton gave unlimited access to a friend/advisor who had zero government classified clearance and was not permitted to have a government job by the President. She took advice from him on Libya. Yet Ambassador Stevens (who she said was a good friend), had zero access. There wasn’t one email between Ambassador Stevens and Sec. Clinton.
4. The American public were told there were 2 attacks in Libya in 2012. There were 20. Sec. Clinton said only two rose to her definition of serious.
5. Clinton left the State Department the night of the attack and left her staff and the DOD in charge.
6. In 2011, there were 795 emails involving daily and sometimes hourly updates on Benghazi to Hillary Clinton. There were 67 emails in 2012 until the day of the attack. In 2012, there were very few updates in those emails.
7. During the hearing, Clinton repeatedly threw blame and accountability for various actions on others, including the President.
8. Her former Chief of Staff and Attorney Cheryl Mills, put hundreds of little notes in front of her, coaching her on answers.
9. Clinton continues to say that her attorneys determined which emails were business and which were personal. She claims no participation, as she trusted them. Yet emails are still emerging that were business and not turned over by Clinton.
10. Clinton claimed Stevens was a good friend, yet he didn’t have any phone number, email, etc. to reach her.

This is far from over. Many questions at the end of the hearing on gun running seem to be a setup for the rest of the investigation. As the day dragged on, it was clear there is a lot of deception/incompetence involved in Benghazi.

##

LA note: I’ve been accused of targeting Secretary Clinton. I’ve been told my personal opinions sway my analysis of her. To be clear, when I am conducting an analysis it’s based on the data. My personal opinion doesn’t matter. If you review some of my other Content Statement Analyses, you’ll see that I’m merely highlighting their own words or actions. My knowledge, skills, abilities, experience and training in deception are based on science and proven studies. My job here is merely to point out what has been said or not said, as well as to call attention to their nonverbal communication. It doesn’t matter who the subject is – it works the same on everyone (ask my children).