There is “no question” that Hillary Clinton or someone in her “circle” was involved in the cover-up of administration missteps in the early days of the Benghazi consulate attack last September, says House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa.
In an interview with CBS News Monday, Issa repeated long-held claims of Clinton’s involvement in a potential cover-up of the September 11, 2012 attack on the American embassy in Benghazi, Libya.
The difference now is that more evidence has come to light, and what was previously seen as paranoid conspiracy on the part of Issa and his ilk looks less crazy and more, well … true.
But now, the question is “who is responsible?” If you asked Issa, he’d say Hillary Clinton or someone in her cabal.
“If Hillary Clinton is not responsible for the before, during and after mistakes… it’s somebody close,” he said. “There certainly are plenty of people close to the former secretary who knew, and apparently were part of the problem.”
The silver bullet in the Benghazi investigation came over the weekend with testimony from Greg Hicks, the No. 2 man in Libya at the time of the attack.
He testified that everyone (who matters) thought it was a terrorist attack “from the get-go,” completely contradicting the Obama administration’s evolving talking points, Ambassador Susan Rice’s talk show tour immediately following the attack, President Obama’s own comments in a presidential debate with then-opponent Mitt Romney, and Secretary Hillary Clinton’s testimony on the attack shortly before leaving office as Secretary of State.
On top of all that, Mark I. Thompson, the deputy coordinator for operations in the State Department’s counterterrorism bureau, is reportedly planning on testifying that Clinton attempted to clock his bureau from communications on the attack.
If that’s true, it will tarnish Clinton’s record as Secretary of State, and possibly cripple her potential bid for the presidency in 2016.
Of course, if we assume that a Benghazi-Clinton cover-up did take place, the question is “why?” Issa actually has an answer for that, saying, “it could be a general want to believe that we’re closer to the end of the war on terror than right in the middle of it.” It also could have had a lot to do with the fact that President Obama was facing a major election at the time, as well.
Do you think that there’s more to the Benghazi Clinton cover-up than we’re being told, or is there no conspiracy here?