Yesterday, a conference consisting of five Republican chairmen of various House Committees released a report on the Benghazi attacks. In it, two facts are extremely damaging to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
First, on March 28, 2012, the predecessor of Ambassador Christopher Stevens sent a cable directly to Hillary Clinton asking for more security.
An April 19, 2012 response – signed by Hillary herself – acknowledged the Ambassador’s request while also explaining that security would actually be diminished.
At best, this shows an incredible lack of judgment on the part of Clinton. At worst, she’s got blood on her hands. That’s why the reason behind her decision to not only ignore the cable but to do the opposite of what it recommended is so important.
Second, during Clinton’s January 23rd testimony in front of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, she said that she had no knowledge of any requests for an increase in security.
Based on the document she signed, that would constitute perjury. Again, we need to know why. The commission of perjury in this matter only seems to bolster the arguments of those who allege that something more sinister was going on when the requests for more security were ignored.
Rep. Darrell Issa, one of the five chairman who made up the conference that authored the report, was featured on CBS This Morning and Fox and Friends to discuss this latest development:
Then again, what difference does it make?