Hillary's fortuitous fall from her Benghazi Stonewall

The alleged fainting spell and subsequent concussion of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton appears a bit suspicious when factoring in all of her stonewalling and obfuscation to this point. It all started on September 16th, when U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice - instead of Hillary - appeared on five Sunday talk shows to give demonstrably false information about the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi. Rice said in an interview with NBC's Brian Williams that the reason Hillary 'declined to do it' was because the Secretary of State was too tired after a 'grueling week'.

On November 30th, when Hillary was asked why Rice appeared on those shows instead of her, the Secretary of State responded that she wouldn't answer a "hypothetical" about what could have happened.

No, she really said that (at the :37 mark):



Even MSNBC's resident RINO, Joe Scarborough could see right through this one. Start watching at the 2:40 mark when the Morning Joe Crew airs a snippet of Rice's interview with Williams but pay more attention to Scarborough's reaction afterward. He is convinced that the reason Hillary didn't do those shows was because of a political calculation, not because of fatigue.



Before moving on, time for another illustration of what Scarborough was talking about, via Jim Carrey, who represents Susan Rice in this metaphor:



Back to Hillary...

On October 2nd, the House Oversight Committee sent Hillary a letter asking for answers about why requests for security at the Benghazi consulate were ignored. Her response?

Ignore the letter.

On November 1st, the House Oversight Committee sent Hillary another letter, asking about documents that had come into the possession of the Committee which showed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and officials at the consulate were very concerned about their security on the day of the attack. Her response?

Ignore the letter.

In early November, it was reported that Hillary declined to appear before the House Foreign Affairs Committee on the 15th of that month because she would be in Australia.

Via PJM:

“She was asked to appear at House Foreign Affairs next week, and we have written back to the chairman to say that she’ll be on travel next week,” said department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland. She did not answer a question about whether Clinton would be willing to fly back from Australia to address either the Foreign Affairs panel or the Senate and House closed-door intelligence committee hearings getting to the root of the Benghazi scandal.

On December 10th, it was reported that Hillary would be canceling her trip to the Middle East due to a stomach virus. Three days later, it was reported early in the day that she would be testifying in front of the Senate and House foreign relations committee on December 20th. Later in the day, it appeared that Clinton was backing away from testifying because the Accountability Review Board (ARB) had not completed its report and probably wouldn't by the 20th.

Via Foreign Policy:

State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said today that the ARB is not complete, might not be complete by Dec. 20, and Clinton has not agreed to testify on Dec. 20.

“The Hill has talked about a planning date on the calendar. That presumes that the ARB is finished,” Nuland said. “That’s dependent on all of the work getting done between now and then… The ARB is continuing to do its work, to my knowledge it has not yet completed its work.”

Clinton has agreed to brief the House and Senate foreign relations committees on how she interprets the ARB report, whenever it surfaces.

In the wake of this equivocating, pressure was no doubt applied to the State Department by committee members. For one thing, they announced that Hillary would testify because the date was on the State Department's calendar. For another thing, committee members insisted that they have access to the ARB report despite Nuland's claims that all Hillary could agree to was to include Congress in her response to the ARB report. None of that includes how frustrated many committee members are by how long Clinton and the State Department have been stonewalling.

Then, on the morning of December 15th, Hillary faints as a consequence of her stomach virus and gets a concussion.

Via Foreign Policy:

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton won't testify to Congress next week on Benghazi, after fainting and suffering a concussion Saturday and due to her ongoing stomach ailment.

"While suffering from a stomach virus, Secretary Clinton became dehydrated and fainted, sustaining a concussion," Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Philippe Reines said in a statement. "She has been recovering at home and will continue to be monitored regularly by her doctors. At their recommendation, she will continue to work from home next week, staying in regular contact with Department and other officials. She is looking forward to being back in the office soon."

Deputy Secretaries of State Bill Burns and Tom Nides will both testify in Clinton's place, according to the office of Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry (D-MA).

Note how suddenly the readiness of the ARB report is no longer an issue. Bill Burns and Tom Nides are about to assume the same position that Susan Rice did on September 16th and isn't it interesting that they'll apparently be doing it whether the ARB report is completed or not.

One day before Clinton's fortuitous fall, Fox News' Chris Stirewalt wrote the following:

Clinton can hardly leave her post before a replacement is confirmed, so her goal is to keep the Benghazi business from damaging her valedictory weeks at Foggy Bottom.

It’s a tricky task, but as Rice learned and Obama has been taught again, Clinton is not someone to be underestimated.

Perhaps, but  a concussion caused by passing out from a stomach virus days before she was set to testify?!

If Scarborough was right about why Hillary didn't appear on those Sunday shows, this latest bit of news is at minimum, very suspicious.

Before sending Rice out to do the talking, Hillary was apparently too tired to do it herself. Now, before sending Burns and Nides out to do the talking, she has a virus that caused her to fall on her head.

One thing should be very, very obvious. Hillary Clinton does not want to talk about Benghazi.

Why?

Democrats who want Obama to exploit Connecticut shootings were silent over plans to exploit Fast and Furious

Use different tactics and actions and use all events of the period for your purpose. - Saul Alinsky (Jerrold Nadler agrees)

The shooting deaths of 20 young school children in Connecticut happened on the second anniversary of the shooting death of Border Patrol agent Brian Terry. Before the sun set on the day of the school shootings, shamelessly opportunistic Democratic politicians went to work exploiting and politicizing the heinous event to push their gun control agendas. Yet, for the last two years, they've had no interest in getting to the bottom of Terry's murder. Why? Well, because very powerful people inside the Obama administration were behind an operation intended to give guns to bad guys and then exploit the predictable deaths for the same reason - gun control.

Earlier this year, at the NRA Convention, House Oversight Committee chairman Darrell Issa said the following:

“We’ve never answered the question, ‘What were they thinking of?’ Could it be that what they really were thinking of was in fact to use this walking of guns in order to promote an assault weapons ban. Many think so, and they haven’t come up with an explanation that would cause any of us not to agree.”

To that point, Barack Obama and his Secretary of State Hillary Clinton were all too happy to push a false narrative that said 90% of the guns used in the commission of crimes in Mexico, come from America.

Here is Hillary during an interview with CBS reporter Lara Logan in March of 2009. Begin watching at the :30 mark:



Here is Obama in April of 2009, touting the same bogus statistics. Take note at the 1:00 mark:



Eventually, that "90%" figure was proven to be false. If it was false, why was it being touted?

Exploitation, perhaps?

Within hours of the horrendous Newtown, CT school shootings, New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg said that Barack Obama must take 'Immediate Action' against guns. New York's governor Andrew Cuomo said society must "unify" and "crack down on guns". In a brief moment of honesty, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) said that Barack Obama needs to "exploit" the shootings to push gun control.

It is amazing that Bloomberg and Cuomo would speak out in support of gun control so soon after these shootings because of their collective silence on Operation Fast and Furious. In that case, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) intentionally let guns 'walk' into Mexico and the Department of Justice (DOJ) at the highest levels was in on it.

As a member of the House Judiciary Committee, Nadler had plenty of opportunities to call out Attorney General Eric Holder on the Department of Justice's role in Fast and Furious. It was a program that was implemented by the ATF for one primary reason - to put guns into the hands of Mexican drug cartels, who would then kill innocent people with those guns. The plan was to "exploit" those deaths to create the climate for more gun control.

In the case of Fast and Furious, guns were intentionally given to bad guys for the purpose of killing innocent people. In the case of the Connecticut shootings, a bad guy was solely responsible for using a gun to kill innocent children.

Yet, Obama, Bloomberg, Cuomo, and Nadler want to 'exploit' the shooting deaths of those children for the purpose of pushing gun control?!

That's called audacity.