January 4, 2016

The WaPo Fact Checker checks "What Benghazi family members say Hillary Clinton said about the video" and comes up empty.

Instead of Pinocchios, we're left with "No Rating": 
Clinton says that in speaking with the families she did not blame the Benghazi attacks on the video. Most participants we interviewed (four out of six) back up her version, saying they do not recall her mentioning a video.... Perhaps it all started with a comment made by [Susan] Rice.... Perhaps the question of who said what at what moment got jumbled over time. Or perhaps Clinton mentioned the video privately to just two people — and not to others.

Clearly we cannot come to a resolution that would be beyond dispute. Readers will have to come to their own conclusions based on the evidence we have assembled.
That is, the evidence is at least all in one place for your perusal. Make your own judgment. 

63 comments:

eric said...

And yet there are three family members who say she lied to their face.

Why only two in the wapo article?

SGT Ted said...

They don't want to get an IRS anal exam, so they're going to hedge their bet.

mccullough said...

Since Hillary made public statements blaming the video, which we now know she knew were untrue, her credibility on this issue is shot. Also, since she's a well known liar since the 1990s -- a "congenital liar" --, her credibility in general is less than zero.

So what is the motivation for the two family members to lie?

Only a fool would believe Hillary

Mrs Whatsit said...

So Hillary Clinton is basically calling the several family members who say that she did blame the video liars, and the WaPo is giving her a pass.

wendybar said...

LIARS!! The Washington Post is covering up for Clinton?? SHOCKER!!!!

traditionalguy said...

Covering Up For Clinton's is a huge Media Project that employs thousands of skilled propagandists and includes good benefits and a pension plan.

Can that beat Trump's skill at attacking the weaknesses of his opponent?

It is today's digital devices and 24/7 Cable TV program guests v. old print media and 20 something News Reader Bimbettes.

SteveR said...

I'm not sure how you can look at what happened during that period, and subsequently, and not conclude they were lying. She's an expert in the management of the lies, and it goes on to this day but we know it was about the election and covering up the messy details of why Stevens was in Benghazi.

Michael said...

No one to my knowledge has ever asserted that Clinton told each and every family member that the cause of the attack was the video. The WaPo piece has two of the six families making it clear that she told them that lie. The premise of the WaPo article is absurd: all of the families had to be lied to for any to be lied to? The author of the article implies that the families are lying or are victims of false memories. Pretty disgusting.

jaydub said...

Why are you splitting hairs about whether Clinton lied specifically to the families at the casket reception when we know for a fact from her own emails that she lied to everyone, except for Chelsea and the government of Egypt, about the video causing the attack at Bengazi, and did so for several weeks after the attack including the period when the cited ceremony was held? "Everyone" includes the families, you and I and 320 million other American citizens. The fact that she offically lied to the entire population of the US about the cause of the attack during the performance of her duties as Secretary of State appears to be indisputable, whether the Washington Post hack agrees or not.

Scott M said...

October Surprise. Someone in one of those families has phone video of her saying it.

Hagar said...

I thought we saw a video of Hillary! shaking hands with the families when the caskets arrived at Dover and the accompanying text stated that she promised them to get those responsible for the video that caused it all?
And then we had the videos and uproar about that poor schmuck being rousted out and arrested in the middle of the night - in Oregon, I think.

Nonapod said...

As with all things Clintonian, there may be just enough ambiguity, equivocation, and obfuscation for her to slither out of this. It's not unreasonable to assume that the 2 family members are either misremembering or lying out of anger and grief, but it sounds like these may have been one-on-one conversations, so it's also possible that she said 6 different things to 6 people.

Jim Sweeney said...

Why? It's self-evident. As Glen Reynolds says: They Democrat operators with by-lines. And disgraceful alleged Americans.

TreeJoe said...

I actually enjoyed this read and agree - this is not a clear cut story. However, there is more evidence that needs to be brought into the article. Susan Rice's repeated and structured reporting - immediately and firmly afterwards, as a direct report to Hillary for example.

Here's the rub:

- The attack had many hallmarks of a planned attack. It took a long time, used varied weaponry, and in fact moved to multiple locations. It was sustained. It was successful. And it was while an Ambassador was there.

- It was at the same time as regional protests at American properties, and there was a crowd there before the attack began.

- The administration, including specifically the State Department under Hillary, deliberately concluded that the video was at least a heavy cause and did not attribute it to terrorists publicly until much later, while privately stating it was terrorists.

I think reasonable people can conclude that there was a deliberate effort to tie it to a video.

Gahrie said...

Why, oh why would anybody give Hillary the benefit of a doubt when it comes to lying to serve her own interests?

Didn't the Left read The Emperor's New Clothes as children?

The Drill SGT said...

Contrary to WaPo, Quigley is on tape saying Hillary lied to her about the video

http://www.mediaite.com/online/benghazi-victims-sister-hillarys-lying-she-told-us-youtube-video-was-to-blame/

Given that the Clinton tean was blaming the video on Sep 12,13, and 16, why isn't it likely with 3 witnesses, that Clinton blamed the video on the 14th?

Kevin said...

Hmmmm.....Who to believe? The grieving families, or a pathological liar...?

BDNYC said...

I am sure in addition to addressing all the families assembled, Hillary said a few things to each family separately and individually. I suspect it happened like this: to those who demanded justice and expressed the most anger, Hillary blamed the video and promised to arrest the filmmaker. To the others, she just comforted them and praised their loved ones for their brave service.

Virgil Hilts said...

Why should we take some grieving family members' word over a Clinton's.
Ala the late great Michael Kelly in February/March 1998, "I believe!"
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-1998-02-05/html/CREC-1998-02-05-pt1-PgE107-2.htm
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1998/03/18/i-still-believe/3f96aae6-3442-41e7-9928-1b096936e88c/

Jim Gust said...

No one said she lied to *all* of the families.

Once again, WaPo is in the tank for the Democrat.

Saint Croix said...

The article links to this article: Is Hillary Clinton a Liar on Benghazi?

Marco Rubio says this...

"Last week, Hillary Clinton went before a committee. She admitted she had sent e-mails to her family saying, ‘Hey, this attack at Benghazi was caused by Al Qaida-like elements.’ She spent over a week telling the families of those victims and the American people that it was because of a video. And yet the mainstream media is going around saying it was the greatest week in Hillary Clinton’s campaign. It was the week she got exposed as a liar.”

Kessler awards Rubio two Pinocchios. So he's gone from two Pinocchios to no Pinocchios? So how many Pinocchios do we give to your attack on Mr. Rubio, sir? He's a two-Pinocchio liar and now, oops, we don't know.

tim in vermont said...

So if "beyond dispute" is the standard, he better give up his gig then. But we all know that the WaPo's standards begin with "what is the political importance to the Democrats of the speaker."

If you want to see another collection of facts about a Clinton where a conclusion is studiously avoided, you can check out Slate's inquiry into the facts around the Juanita Broaddrick rape. (Yeah, I said rape.)

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/1999/03/is_juanita_broaddrick_telling_the_truth.3.html

walter said...

H: Lie? Like a rug?

David Begley said...

WaPo covering for Hillary per usual.

WaPo's failure to reach a conclusion is a massive victory for Hillary. Now she can claim WaPo cleared her. "Not enough evidence."

Also "old news" and a "Fox News obsession."

Watch the video of Mrs. Smith. Hillary lied to that poor woman.

tim in vermont said...

t's not unreasonable to assume that the 2 family members are either misremembering or lying out of anger and grief,

LOL, like the five witnesses against her husband in the rape case, they were all lying out of anger too!

tim in vermont said...

OK, I think I get it now. "Beyond Dispute" is the standard for Clinton and Obama, "All my liberal friends agree with me" is the standard for Republicans.

Things are much clearer now.

Hagar said...

The people in Benghazi was on the air talking to their superiors in Washington, DC and elsewhere from the time the first shot was fired. No way the administration did not know what was going on from the first minute.

Rounds said...

And yet Hillary's speech at ceremony welcoming bodies of victims at Dover AFB where she blamed video for attack is on tape and undisputed, with families in attendance.

What she said in private can't be known, but she can't argue with the tapes of public comments.

The Drill SGT said...

Remember that the Question being evaluated is only: Did she lie to the families?

Given that she and her staff were putting out the narrative on Sep 12,13, and 16th that the video was the proximate cause, the question is, did she say the same thing to the families on the 14th?

3 say she lied to them in private conversation. The fact that 3 others don't recall her lying is not at all germane to the honesty of the first 3.

Yancey Ward said...

Well, it depends on what your definition of "lie" is. Unreasonable people are holding Clinton to an unfair standard where a lie is defined as knowingly making a false statement. Sure, she did exactly that, but that doesn't really mean it was a "lie, so to speak. I mean, all you really have to support the charge of a lie on Clinton's part is authenticated video of her blaming the internet video. How one then uses that to prove Clinton blamed the video is mystifying to me.

gspencer said...

She has reason to lie.

They don't.

Left Bank of the Charles said...

Aren't we all being a little too cute in our recollections? The video was certainly being used as the excuse for protests at a number of our embassies in other Islamic countries on the anniversary of 9/11. Was that and the attack at Benghazi really just a coincidence? I didn't buy for a moment that any of those demonstrations were entirely spontaneous, at least so far as the riot organizers, who seem to have been operating from the same playbook.

Now it is true the Obama administration may have used the Benghazi attack to marginalize the leaders of the demonstrations in the other countries. And they may have thrown it in the face of the protester-sympathizer and now-deposed Muslim Brotherhood President of Egypt Mohamed Morsi. How unfair of the Obama administration to do that. Really?

tim in vermont said...

I guess Kessler couldn't go to 1:12 of this video of Hillary speaking at Andrews AFB.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSooz2wXpes

Somehow the Daily Mail found it... Go figure.

It is almost as if Kessler was suffering some kind of subtle bias that only the finest psychiatric minds equipped with the most sensitive neurosensing equipment and favorable laboratory conditions might have the faintest glimmer of a chance of detecting.

walter said...

Here ya go, Rounds:
Obama and Hillary Blame Youtube Video for Benghazi Terrorist Attack as Coffins Arrive

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Why don't people trust the Media anymore? I mean, not just in a "they're too partisan" type of way, but in a fundamental "they're not really trying to find and disseminate the truth" way.

This is why.

DanTheMan said...

Ann,
You tagged this post with both Hillary Clinton 2016 and lying. Seems redundant...

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Or perhaps Clinton mentioned the video privately to just two people — and not to others.

Yeah, since all the interviewees seem to agree the various officials walked around and spoke with the groups of families individually PERHAPS that's just what happened, genius. I mean, she wasn't reading from a script each time or anything, was she?
I understand the desire to be evenhanded and not make unsupported conclusions, so I could see claiming that there's not enough evidence to make a call, but this sound like they're going out of their way to introduce ambiguity where it doesn't exist. Clinton spoke separately to several groups in the same room. The groups disagree on what Clinton said to each of them, but there's not really much reason to think they would agree (not only due to differing memories, emotions, etc, but also because there's no reason to think Clinton spoke loudly enough to be heard by everyone in the room the whole time) to begin with. Perhaps she said different things to different people? Of course she did!

tim in vermont said...

How unfair of the Obama administration to do that. Really?

Why lie about it? Why promise to put the filmmaker, an artist, in jail for making art? And of course, then following through and putting him in jail on a flimsy pretext, like political prisoners are imprisoned everywhere?

Hillary said that "the problem with the internet is that there are no gatekeepers." Well I guess throwing people in jail for publishing stuff you don't like is a form of redress for that problem.

What kills me is the cult like determination to swallow whatever lie she is peddling today.

tim in vermont said...

Note that Clinton devotes one sentence to the “heavy assault” in Benghazi and then another sentence about the “rage and violence” over the “awful Internet video.” (The video resulted in 40 protests around the world.) She does not say they are connected, although we agree that listeners may have gotten that impression.

Given the context of her speech..

But what’s really in dispute is what was said behind closed doors, in a private reception held in a comfortable room.

Of course it is...

Imagine the same set of facts arrayed against Rubio, for example... Oh why bother...

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Wait, didn't Mrs. Clinton tweet that certain people have a "right to be believed?" Ah, just kidding, no one thought she was serious.

Anthony said...

>>Covering Up For Clinton's is a huge Media Project that employs thousands of skilled propagandists and includes good benefits and a pension plan.

Yeah, my local news station joined in on the "Let's rephrase what Hillary said about Trump being used in ISIS propaganda videos" strategy, and informed us that she said that Trump was "becoming" a tool for recruiting.

I do often wonder whether these media people really are aware they're lying or if they're still clueless.

rehajm said...

Make your own judgment

I judge anyone who believes the WaPo fact checker is a news oriented fact checking exercise as misinformed.

Matthew Sablan said...

"(Not every family member agreed to be interviewed. The Clinton campaign declined to comment.)"

-- Seems pointless to fact check when you acknowledge you can't get all the facts.

Matthew Sablan said...

"Note that Clinton devotes one sentence to the “heavy assault” in Benghazi and then another sentence about the “rage and violence” over the “awful Internet video.” (The video resulted in 40 protests around the world.) She does not say they are connected, although we agree that listeners may have gotten that impression."

-- Analysis like this is horrible. People who do horrible analysis should be fined. I'm not saying the author should be fined, but listeners may have gotten that impression.

Matthew Sablan said...

Honestly, the note taking the same-ish day seems pretty damning to me.

Jim Nicholson said...

There is very little evidence that anyone associated with the Washington Post's "fact checking" operation has ever encountered an actual fact and recognized it as such.

Original Mike said...

"I do often wonder whether these media people really are aware they're lying or if they're still clueless."

No you don't.

Gabriel said...

@Yancey Ward: I mean, all you really have to support the charge of a lie on Clinton's part is authenticated video of her blaming the internet video. How one then uses that to prove Clinton blamed the video is mystifying to me.

So said the Tortoise to Achilles.

rightguy2 said...

She's not as good as her betrothed at keeping her lies straight; Bill was miraculous as he lied constantly and could remember every one of those prevarications 10 years later, and exactly who he told them to. BJ, of course, lied when truth would have been just fine.

MadisonMan said...

If Hillary did relate Benghazi to the Video at other times, what the heck does it matter if she did or didn't do the same while meeting in person with people related to victims?

gadfly said...

Pity the the victim of the infamous Clinton scandals (mostly named "gate" on the end). Hillary summed up the unfairness of it all with what was supposed to be one of Chelsea's favorite nursery rhymes:

As I was standing in the street,
As quiet as could be,
A great big ugly man came up
And tied his horse to me.

But the Wicked Witch of the West Wing wouldn't have a clue as to what "standing quietly" means and Ken Star is not an ugly man. Or did she really refer to Vince Foster?

Anthony said...

"No you don't. "

Yes I do! The capacity for self delusion is great. I can really see someone convincing themselves that the paraphrase is really what she meant.

The Godfather said...

The most important phrase in Hillary!'s speech at Andrews AFB was "that we had nothing to do with". You might think at first that it was the "hateful internet video" that "we had nothing to do with", but in context the implication is broader, that "we had nothing to do with" what happened in Benghazi on 9/11/12. And who is "we"? "We" in context doesn't mean "the United States", it means "President Obama and me." That's what this is all about. Not about the deaths of five brave Americans, but about Obama and Hillary! not being responsible for those deaths.

Remember that when these Americans were brought home from Benghazi Obama was in the final stretch of his re-election campaign, in which one of the accomplishments he was touting was that he had killed bin Laden and largely defeated al Qaeda (as Biden put it so eloquently, "Detroit's alive and bin Laden's dead."). Hillary!'s chance to become president in 2016 depended on Obama's reelection in 2012. Also, of course, as Secretary of State she was responsible (in Harry Truman's "the buck stops here" sense) for the security of US diplomatic facilities abroad. So it was important to her that the attack on the Benghazi Consulate not be seen as evidence that al Qaeda was still an active threat to US lives and interests, or as evidence that the State Department had failed to detect an obvious threat to the Benghazi Consulate and take appropriate defensive measures. If the attack was a spontaneous reaction to this video that had just popped up on the internet, that would cover both Obama's and Hillary!'s asses. When you listen to Hillary!'s remarks, the phrase "that we had nothing to do with" at first seems kind of jarring and out of place in a ceremony to honor five brave Americans who died for their country. But in fact it's the only thing she cared about, or cares about now: That she not be held accountable.

That's evidence of her character, and the one overriding reason why she should not ever become president.

FullMoon said...

And, the state department put on a media blitz overseas dis avowing the vid. Obviously attempting to solidify blame on it.

cubanbob said...

Just run the video of her blaming the filmmaker with the caption do you trust this lying incompetent to be Commander In Chief? Throw in her 3am ad withe caption she had the call and hung up.

Real American said...

HiLIARy has no credibility and neither do her media lapdogs.

David said...

Article: "The evidence was mixed, open to interpretation, but we concluded that there was not enough for GOP rivals to make definitive judgments that she lied."

Consider her history. I always like to start with the "missing" Whitewater tax file that somehow showed up, after subpoenas and stonewalling, in the White House personal quarters.

Michael K said...

Remember the movie "13 Hours" is coming out next week.

I doubt that Disney will be able to hide this one. I'm sure nobody expects an Oscar but I suspect it will do well at the box office.

Saint Croix said...

The capacity for self delusion is great.

Yes! Absolutely right. For instance, the media censors abortion photographs. Routinely they do this, as a matter of course. 40 years of news coverage, and they've never shown us an abortion. Weird, right? Half the country thinks it's a homicide, the other half says it's not. The government says these are not people.

So run a photograph, try to figure it out! Abortion at 6 weeks, abortion at 10 weeks, abortion at 14 weeks, at 18 weeks, at 22 weeks. You would think somebody would do this, right? These aren't people and nobody's being killed. And yet, simultaneously, journalists censor these photographs, as if this is an atrocity that we can't look at.

I have no doubt they aren't thinking about it! It's self-delusion. The capacity for self-delusion is great. Or (and I love this line, from Joe vs. the Volcano), it's a brain cloud. The doctors told Joe he had a brain cloud. Joe's like, "I'm going to die. I've got a brain cloud." And then, at the end of the movie, Meg Ryan asks him, "What's a brain cloud?"

And the funny thing is, when I watched the movie, I believed Joe had a brain cloud too! So, yes, the doctor was a liar. But Joe was an innocent man who was fooled by the lie, because he had not thought about it in critical fashion.

So that's a question to ask any and every journalist you know. "What's an abortion look like, and why are we censoring these photographs?" Plant that seed.

damikesc said...

Keep in mind, she also believes in séances and UFO's. She's Christine O'Donnell without being attractive.

Did she lie? Given her history, I have little doubt.

Bryan C said...

"I do often wonder whether these media people really are aware they're lying or if they're still clueless."

I think they'll happily edit their memories to suit whatever today's official truth requires them to remember. With as much practice as they have lying to the public, they've had even more experience lying to themselves.

Jason said...

I remember Hillary came out shortly after the event claiming that the compound was "heavily fortified."

At the time I had already seen a number of photos taken from around the consulate. One entire side of the compound in Benghazi was protected by... Drum roll... A chain link fence.

Jason said...

Here's what I wrote a few days after the attack, with photographs of the "heavily fortified" chain link fence along one side of the compound.
http://blog.militaryauthority.com/blog-1/bid/222078/opinion-benghazi-whats-going-on

I originally handed the piece in under the title "Benghazi: You Are Being Lied To." My editor didn't want to go out on a limb so she changed the title when she posted it. But.... We were being lied to. And it was Clinton and the entire Obama Administration doing the lying.

This was written before the caskets even got to Dover.