www.jpfinancialeducation.com – Education Blog
www.joehawranek.com – Branding Site
email@example.com – email
“Silence in the face of evil is itself evil. God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act”. Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Analysis of the Benghazi Scandal and Coverup Could Lead to Posssible Charges of Treason
This analysis shows that the Benghazi Scandal and cover up could lead to possible charges of treason in addition to a Scandal. On September 11, 2012, our Embassy and Ambassador’s official residence was attacked in Libya by terrorists. Four Americans were killed – the ambassador and three Navy Seals.
These are the facts. Evidence is growing to prove that as fact. However, the Obama administration and all its representatives are in consistent denial of a terrorist event. Why? They are covering up something. Judicial Watch has opened Freedom of Information suits against the Obama administration to get more facts. Their investigations, allegations and disclosures so far have led me to believe that the “Embassy” was used as a front organization for illegal arms transfer from Libya to the Syrian rebels via the use of our ally’s shipping in Turkey.
Government Cover Up Methods
This government’s cover up modus operandi is the same as used in their illegal gun running to the drug lords in Mexico. The press labeled that operation, “Fast and Furious”. Read my articles and POSTS for specifics on these cases
Continuation of the Cover Up
This article is about the continuation of the Cover Up in the face of the facts. Government cover-ups as shown in the above articles proceed using the same cover up modus operandi.
1. Outright lies by denial of fact and substitution of a “cover story”;
2. Outright denial using “plausible deniability”;
3. Refusal to have any witnesses at the scene of the incidents interviewed;
4. Reassignment of the government employees to better jobs as “rewards” for keeping their mouths shut;
5. Time is used as an asset when denial goes from months to years as in this case;
6. Continual and incessant reinforcement of the cover story – the Big Lie.
The Big Lie
Step 6 is the Hitler/Goebbels method of “A lie repeated and repeated is eventually believed.” He used the technique against the Jews. An invited editorial by Karl Rove, former Deputy Chief of Staff tor George Bush, on 02/27/14, in the Wall Street Journal relates how using Step 6 above, National Security Advisor, Susan Rice, was on Meet the Press on Sunday, 2/23/14. This is Step 5. On this interview she:
· Expressed no regrets for saying that the attacks were “absolutely” the result of protests against a “hateful video”. This is the cover story – See step 1 above
· Expressed that this was the “best information” that she had at the time. Step 1 again. This was a blatant lie as evidenced below. Steps 1 and 2.
The Lie Exposed
Gen. Carter Ham, Head of the Africa Corps, testified to the House Armed Services Committee (declassified this month), that “I knew within minutes this was not a demonstration, this was a terrorist attack.” He almost immediately informed the following individuals before their scheduled meeting with President Obama in the Oval Office.
· o Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta
· o Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff, Gen. Martin Dempsey
Leon Panetta testified to the Senate Armed Services in 2013 that he informed Mr Obama of the attack, “There was no question in my mind this was a terrorist attack.
Deputy Chief of Mission Greg Hicks, America’s number 2 diplomat in Libya, testified to congressional investigators in April 2013, “Everyone in the mission thought it was a terrorist attack from the beginning.”
· Acting Assistant Secretary of State, Beth Jones, sent an email to State Department officials on September 12, 2012, shortly after the attack, that she had informed the Libyan Ambassador to the US, Ansah al-Shariah, a “terrorist group, conducted the attacks”. This is a formal statement from the US to the Libyan government. Note the date.
· CIA Station Chief in Libya, sent an email to the Director of the CIA that the attacks were “NOT, NOT an escalation of protests.”
The Government’s Man Who Should Know
Mike Morell, the Deputy Director of the CIA, played a critical role in the Administration’s handling of the Benghazi public relations. He has not been interviewed. Step 3. Some questions that he needs to answer are:
· What contact did he have with Mr. Hicks, CIA station chief?
· Did they tell him it was a terrorist attack? They knew it was one based upon the testimony of General Carter Ham who had told Leon Panetta.
· What did he direct the Station Chief to do?
Fox News, Catherine Herriage, reported that in a video conference within 72 hours of the attack, Mike Morrell “suggested that the attacks resulted from a demonstration.” How did Mike Morrell come to this conclusion? Susan Rice was on “Meet the Press” TV show on 2/23/14. A number of questions should be posed to her. Step 1, 2 and 3
· Who gave her that assignment and why?
· Who briefed her and gave her the talking points on o Videos?
· Who gave the briefers their instructions?
· Who did Ms. Rice talk to besides her “briefers”?
· Did she talk to CIA station chief?
· Did she see the CIAs station chief’s email – - – “NOT, NOT an escalation of protests.”
NSC Political Advisors
The National Security Council is supposed to advise the President when situations arise like Benghazi. There are two political advisers on that Council – Ben Rhoads and Tommy Vieter. What was their role in advising
Senior White House adviser David Pouffe. What advice was given? Remember that elections were coming up in November. Finally, we return to the cover up with Step 4 – Give a plush job and remove from the scene anyone who could give information about the incident. Who could that be? It is Mike Morrell.
Mike Morrell’s Reward for Being Quiet
Let us see what happened to Mike Morell?
· He left the CIA and took a “plush” job at a consulting firm run by Hillary Clinton’s close advisor Phillip Reines;
· He has a contract with CBS news whose president is David Rhodes. David is the brother of Ben Rhodes who is on the National Security Council. Judicial Watch Posting.
Utube Video of Witness Removed
Based upon a Judicial Watch alert of its members, I posted the following on November 13, 2013. This brief update about the Benghazi cover up is based upon the Judicial Watch Verdict issue dated November 2013. On September 11, 2012, another scandal started in the administration of Obama. It was the Benghazi attack on the embassy, which killed Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans. It resulted in a cover-up that is ongoing to this day.
Judicial watch has issued a special report entitled “On the Anniversary of the Benghazi Attack of September 11, 2012: Unanswered Questions and the Quest for Accountability from the Obama Administration.” This report focuses on the aftermath of the September 11 attacks. It specifically outlines the Obama administration’s methods used to withhold information about the Benghazi issue. It nicely reveals in a very detailed chronological fashion all of the events leading up to the attack. I have highlighted this information as well as using other sources in my article 12 on this site noted above. There are a number of very suspicious actions used by this administration that are being interpreted as cover-ups by others and myself. Among these are the following:
· Condoning Terrorists – In July, 2012 Ahmed Abu Khattala was interviewed by CNN. How is this possible? Libyan officials identified him as the “mastermind” of the original 911 attacks as early as October 2011. This means that a specified terrorist was interviewed by CNN and the US government ignored the event.
· Nondisclosure Agreements – House Representative Frank Wolf reported on the floor “According to trusted sources that have contacted my office, many if not all survivors of the Benghazi attacks along with others at the Department of Defense and the CIA have been asked or directed to sign nondisclosure agreements about their involvement in the Benghazi attacks.” This is Steps 1.2 and 3.
· Gun Running – On the day of the attack, Ambassador Stevens met with Mahmoud El-Mufti, the owner of the Libyan based shipping company, Al-Marfa, that allegations have stated was being used for weapons transfer out of the ambassador’s compound, called the SMC in Benghazi, to Syrian rebels via Turkey. One year after the attack there has been no accountability, no military actions, no drones, and no arrests.
Further, the administration has “stonewalled” any attempts to interview anyone that was physically at Benghazi during the actions. Finally, it appears that CBS was forced to withdraw its interview with the only individual that was there physically at the scene during the event. Frankly, again I say that I am very skeptical of CBS’s actions and this administration’s actions. Steps 1, 2, 3, and 5.
What is at Stake?
What is at stake here? On November 8, 2013, I posted on my www.jpfinancialeducation blog. I Posted an URL to a 15-minute informative segment of “60 Minutes”. The URL was correct but someone removed the “60 Minutes” segment from Utube shortly after it was posted. One can only guess who. One does need to ask, “Who would benefit most if the allegation were true and they did not want it shown? To me, it is obvious. I just checked again and the 60 Minute Segment has removed. This was the original link but it is no longer available – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3t8HeHEO-Qk
My POST was as follows:
This link to 60 minutes provides additional evidence on Benghazi. As you know, my contention is that Hillary Clinton, Leon Panetta and Obama need to be at least questioned, investigated and possibly brought up on charges for “Benghazi” and “Fast and Furious”. Only they could have issued the orders to “stand down”. Obama is implicated in his “executive order to aid the insurgents” and Holder has been previously held in contempt of Congress for lying to Congress about “Fast and Furious”. The order to “stand down” to our military was issued 3 times at Benghazi. Over the last 2 years, Obama has fired over 200 field grade officers from the military. No one knows why. My documentation of the events and reasoning are found on my cited above articles. It appears to me that evidence now shows that this was pre-meditated abandonment of the Ambassador – - The Question remains of “Why?” The answer appears to be centered on “gun running to the enemy” which is treason as defined in the Constitution. However, that is for an Independent counsel to discover – - – And, this is being discussed in Congress.
“The betrayal of one’s own country by waging war against it or by consciously or purposely acting to aid its enemies.” – -
is a clause anchored in history. It is called the “Treason Clause” and traces its roots back
to an English statute enacted during the reign of Edward III (1327–1377). In my opinion, this Benghazi action is clearly “aid and comfort” to the enemy which is the term used in the Constitution. The term is embedded in Article III, Section III of the Constitution and used to define treason. The words read,
“Treason against the United States, shall consist only of levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.” [My emphasis]
Only an investigation by an independent counsel will clear this up. Will it happen? I doubt it. The RINOs in Congress are in control of the Senate and House Leadership and they have demonstrated many times that they have no backbone against the Democrats based on principles. The Democrats are in lockstep with this administration. Nonetheless, people need to be made aware of what is going on. The cover up continues.