Thursday, October 12, 2017

All Lives Matter?

Imagine you are out to dinner at a nice restaurant, and you are enjoying your filet mignon when a large piece of meat becomes lodged in your throat. You begin to choke. Your face begins to turn blue. The waiter is passing by and you point to your throat and mouth the words, "I need to breathe."

The waiter looks at you and says, "All people need to breathe" and continues toward the kitchen.

The waiter is 100% correct, of course, but he is not addressing YOUR issue. He's telling you that you HAVE NO ISSUE. But you think you do, don't you?

This is the same thing as saying "All lives matter." All lives do matter, and black lives matter, too! When someone says "All lives matter" they are simply blowing off people who believe they are subject to social injustices. Would YOU be mad?

Monday, September 25, 2017

Why Hillary Clinton Was Not Indicted

All Hillary Clinton opponents, haters and "dislikers" just KNOW that she got away with crimes that they just KNOW she is unquestionable guilty of. It's a given, because...well...it's Hillary Clinton.

They KNOW she committed a crime because they BELIEVE James Comey said so:

To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions.
Note that Comey does not suggest a criminal act nor criminal punishment here. He is talking about breaking RULES and possibly losing a security clearance and being reprimanded or fired.

Here is an article that is a classic example of HRC opponents' "proof" that Hillary Clinton committed a crime.

That article is wrong on many points.

The quote of section 793 has a number of ellipses including the part where the subject must have the intent to willfully damage the United States.Read the full section. There is no case: https://www.law.cornell.edu...

The article misconstrues section 1924. There is no evidence that Hillary Clinton REMOVED any classified information from anywhere. She received a small amount of classified information, but she didn't remove it from anywhere. Further it requires the INTENT to remove classified material, and since the FBI found no classified material that was properly marked as classified, there is no way to prove that HRC had any intent. There is no case: https://www.law.cornell.edu...

As to section 798 the article leaves out Whoever knowingly and willfullycommunicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information. There is no way it can be proved that HRC knowingly AND willingly communicated ANYTHING to an unauthorized person much less for the purpose of causing harm to the US. There is no case: https://www.law.cornell.edu...

The article claims HRC broke section 2071, but the section requires that the subject willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys classified information. There is no evidence that HRC concealed, removed,, mutilated, obliterated, or destroyed any classified information and certainly not willfully. Can't be proved. There is no case: https://www.law.cornell.edu...

There is a reason Comey believed no reasonable prosecutor would bring a case against Hillary Clinton. There was no way to prove that she broke the law.

Thursday, August 10, 2017

The Russia Investigation In Simple Terms

I hope I can explain this so that a six year-old can understand it.

Donald J. Trump is a business man who has made and lost a lot of money. He claims his business is primarily real estate, but his real business is promoting the Trump brand.

Although Trump has always been wealthy because of his inheritance, it takes more than personal wealth to reach the heights of Trump's "success". The old saying goes, "It takes money to make money." While true, it works on a grander scale if the money you use to make money comes from somebody else. And THIS is what Trump has been the most successful at.

For purposes of this post, I'm going to start with the casinos. Trump decided that he wanted to make a name for himself by investing in casinos in Atlantic City. He bought and renovated the Taj Mahal and eventually gained ownership of three other casinos. This became problematic almost immediately because:


  1. Trump didn't have the first clue about running casinos and he fired everyone who did
  2. Trump's casinos were essentially in competition among themselves
  3. There was an economic downturn
Trump tried several methods to keep his casino businesses alive. He renegotiated the loans with the banks who finance the casinos. He sold stock in the casino companies to raise more cash. He got his father to buy $3.5 million in casino chips which his father never used or cashed in. In other words it was a gift of $3.5 million. And because he went bankrupt, the stockholders lost all their money.

At some point the banks said "no more". They decided that they were no longer going to loan money to Trump. Since Trump doesn't use his own money, he had to find some place else to raise money to fund his businesses.

Enter the Russians. The Russian Oligarchs are essentially a huge crime syndicate headed up by none other than Vladimir Putin. Putin is said to be the richest man in the world. Almost all of the money made by these mobsters is gained illegally and the rest of the world knows it. So the Russians have all of this cash money that most banks and countries won't touch, and they need to launder it to convert it to money that they can use in the world economy.

So we have cash poor Donald J. Trump and cash rich Vlad Putin, a match made in heaven. Without going into minute detail so as to keep this simple, the oligarchs have laundered their money through complex schemes involving Trump and his children buying and selling real estate for non-market amounts. The result is that Trump has made a lot of money through complex deals involving his partnerships, banks run by the Russian mob, and the Oligarchs themselves. This has resulted in a huge amount of cash belonging to the Russians but held in assets in the US. We would know more about this if we could see Trump's tax returns, and that's why he won't release them.

At some point, a US businessman who was investing in Russia found out through a Russian investigator named Magnitsky the details and depth of much of this illegal money gathering and laundering. The investigator was later killed, but the US businessman was so concerned about the Russian shenanigans that he convinced the US Congress and president to pass the Magnitsky Act which froze all the assets of the Russians in the US. Other countries followed suit.

Now, this is billions of dollars of money that Vlad and his mob can't touch. Putin's reaction? Halt all adoptions of Russian babies by American parents. This is very important because when you hear that Donald Jr., Jared Kushner, and Paul Manafort met with Russians and ended up only talking about an "adoption program", or when you hear the Donald say that he and Vlad spent nearly an hour at a G-20 dinner talking about "adoptions", what they are really talking about is the Russians allowing adoptions IN EXCHANGE for unfreezing all their billions of dollars. That's what it's about.

As a quick side note, Putin hates Hillary Clinton for what she did against the Oligarchs as Secretary of State. Putin didn't think that Clinton could be defeated in 2016, but he figured that if he interfered in the election it could create chaos and jeopardize the legitimacy of her victory.

In summary:
  1. The US has frozen billions of Russian Oligarch's (Putin's) money through the Magnitshy Act
  2. Putin retaliated by freezing adoption of Russian children to US parents
  3. Trump is heavily involved financially with the Russians through complex partnerships and real estate deals. They have some degree of financial control over him
  4. Putin believes he is more likely to get his money out of the US if Trump is president
  5. Meetings between Trump or Trump family and campaign associates (Manafort, Flynn) regarding adoption are actually about how to help Trump win the election to repeal the Magnitsky Act
There is SO much more, but this is a major arc in the story, and it is why Mueller has hired so many experts in financial forensics and criminal law. 

Monday, January 09, 2017

And That Was That?

No.

The October Surprise

As the presidential campaign drew closer to its conclusion, everyone was waiting for the "October Surprise", the event or information that would change the course of the election. First there was the audio tape of Trump admitting to sexual misconduct. This was a huge "scandal", and the GOP was jumping ship in droves, trying to figure out how Trump could be replaced on the ballot so that their loss would not be total and humiliating. But strangely Trump's ability to BS his way through it allowed him to weather the storm as his core support stuck with him. Amazingly in a few days those abandoning the ship were climbing back up the ratlines. As Trump had said, he could shoot somebody in the middle of 5th Avenue and not lose a vote.

And then eleven days before election day, against tradition, protocol, and the strong suggestions of FBI and DOJ officials, Comey sent a letter to the Oversight Committee suggesting that the case against Clinton was being "reopened" because new information related to the case had suddenly been found. It was bad enough that Comey was making such an announcement within days of the election, but the decision was based on such vague "evidence" that Comey admitted in the letter that the FBI had no idea as to the scope or relevance of what they had found. The import of the information was completely unknown, but the impact of the announcement was potentially devastating to Clinton's campaign. National polls had Clinton up by 6% in the week prior to the Comey letter but by only 3% (within the margin of error) the week after.

In an effort to be "fair" to Clinton Comey declared that the FBI would expedite its investigation into the new "evidence" which consisted of metadata from 650,000 emails found on the laptop of Anthony Weiner who was being investigated for sending lewd pictures to an under age female. Weiner was the husband of Huma Abedin, Hillary Clinton's closest adviser. The metadata was information regarding sender, recipient, date, and subject, but not the actual content of the emails. A preliminary scan of the laptop found Hillary Clinton's name in the metadata, and this triggered the reaction. The current wisdom among the campaigns, the media, and "experts" was that the task of sorting out the information could not be done by the election. The damage had been done. Miraculously, the FBI did manage to determine that the subject emails came to be on the laptop when Abedin checked her work emails on her husband's laptop, and the laptop was synced to her work account. All the emails were copies of what the FBI already had. This information was announced by the FBI on the Sunday before election day. Some pollsters have theorized that the "clearing" of Clinton in this matter spurred her haters to make greater efforts to go to the polls and vote for Trump.

Why Did Comey Do It?

Comey said that he wrote the letter to the Oversight Committee eleven days before the election because he felt that he owed it to them to advise them on any new developments related to the previously concluded Clinton investigation. However, it is common knowledge that tradition dictates that no government agency should take any action likely to impact an election within 60 days of that election. Reportedly, high level officials at the FBI and the DOJ reminded Comey of that tradition and even characterized it as "protocol". Furthermore, Comey's own words betray the idea that the FBI even knew they had some new information, a "new development". So logically the Director's action was unwarranted and certainly ill-advised. Why then did he do it?

In July when Comey announced publicly that the FBI would not pursue an indictment against Hillary Clinton he said that the decision had been unanimous among the investigation team. This may have been true, but reporting after the election revealed that there was considerable dissension within the broader agency. Most people, myself included, have traditionally held the opinion that the individual agents of the FBI were passionate about solving crimes but were dispassionate when it came to politics. This turns out not to be the case. There were agents within the bureau who had long-term grudges against the Clintons, basically because they could never prove any wrong-doings by them. Remember in an earlier post that I described the only way the FBI could FINALLY get a solid case against Bill Clinton was to set up a perjury trap using Monica Lewinsky. There are agents in the FBI today who wish to see the Clintons destroyed once and for all.

The FBI had discovered the Weiner laptop metadata characterized as new information early in October, but Comey wasn't informed about it until just before he sent his letter to the Oversight Committee. Comey by now knew there were agents who wanted to hurt the Clinton campaign, and it was clear that a leak of the "new" information was likely. Former New York Mayor and US Attorney Rudy Giuliani was fluffing Fox News with hints that the Trump campaign had some big news coming out at any time. So Comey wanted to stay ahead of the curve, so to speak, by telling Congress before it was leaked to Fox. Apparently he had lost control of the agents within his agency, and this was the only way to cover his ass. In my opinion, if he was to say anything it should have been that there are rumors that the Clinton investigation is being reopened. Those rumors are without foundation and should be ignored. There have been several reports that Comey was not necessarily reluctant to hurt Clinton, and I personally believe that was a factor.

Friday, January 06, 2017

Sooner or Later We'll Find Something

The Ken Starr team worked for years to find dirt on the Clintons regarding Whitewater, Vince Foster, Travelgate et al, but after so much work and $30 million fruitlessly spend, they were ready to close up shop when luck fell right into their laps. Yes, Linda Tripp and the stained blue dress.

History repeated itself with the House Oversight Committee's investigation of the #Benghazi attack. Republicans outright admitted that the sole aim of the investigation was to bring Hillary Clinton down and hinder her presidential candidacy. They investigated and hinted and released partial cherry-picked testimony if efforts to make Clinton look bad. In my previous post I outlined the basics of the Benghazi "scandal" and why it was nonsense. And in a tour-de-force 11 hour grilling of Clinton by the Oversight Committee, the case was laid bare and spent by her effective if not humiliating debunking of the Republican narrative.

So what now? Shut down the investigation and move on to doing the people's business? Hell no! Clinton is still the most electable and qualified candidate for president. We shall not give up our war on Hillary Clinton. She must not be allowed to become president.

In the course of the Oversight Committee's investigation it was learned that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had used a private email server to do State Department business. She said that she did it as a matter of convenience. Like me when I was working, She had one cell phone for official use and for personal use and the emails on those phones were from a "secret" private server. "We've got her now!"

Like so many government systems, the email systems of most government agencies are not the most up-to-date and easiest to use. Many people had complained about how inconvenient they were to work with. It was not uncommon for people in government to work around the system. Condi Rice did not use email at all, but her staff used non-government email to conduct some of their business. Colin Powell used private, non-government email for State Department business. He used a dial-up system. AOL? Maybe. At Clinton's request he explained his methodology but later denied it. Ironically Clinton was able to produce the emails debunking his denial.

Using a private email system for government business is against the rules, but it is not illegal per se. Clinton was warned about it by her staff but apparently ignored those warnings. She shouldn't have done it, and she admitted later that she shouldn't have done it. That wasn't good enough. This was Hillary Clinton, for Christ's sake. She's hiding something. Why else would she be using a non-government email system? Furthermore, the fact that the server wasn't a government server supposedly made her emails uniquely susceptible to hacking, and therefore she had put the security of the United States of America at risk. So either Clinton is hiding something or she's allowed bad guys to access her emails or both. "Oh boy! We've really, really got her now!"

First the security part. The FBI said that there was no evidence that the Clinton server had been successfully hacked. Hacks might have been attempted, but no evidence of success. This is ironic in the context of known successful hackings of multiple government servers including the Office of Personnel Management. So was national security jeopardized? Not any more likely than with a other of a number of government systems.

On to the meat of the issue. Clinton must be hiding something. The Secretary was directed by the House Oversight Committee to turn over her emails for their investigation by the FBI. Clinton agreed to comply with the understanding that she would turn over all State Department-related emails but no emails that were purely personal in nature. She directed her lawyers to determine which emails were which, and handed over the work emails to the FBI. Having no use for the private emails, she said they could be deleted.

Work vs. Personal Email

What was work-related and what was private? A member of Clinton's legal team was assigned to make this determination. According to the FBI this was her process:

she automatically deemed any email sent from or to a .gov and .mil address as related to work; she searched the tens of thousands of emails for names of senior State Department officials, lawmakers, foreign leaders and other government officials; she conducted a keyword search for work-related terms; and she looked at the sender, recipient and "subject" of every email for other potentially work-related emails, but she did not read the contents of those emails. - Source: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clinton-deleted-33000-emails-secretary-state/story?id=42389308
This shows that Clinton was not the person who decided what was and wasn't personal. Furthermore, ANY email received or sent by Clinton to a government or military email address would be archived on that system. A perusal of those system archives searching for emails with Clinton's private server address would easily make such emails available, and in fact some Clinton emails were apparently reproduced by this means. She wasn't hiding anything.

Top Secret Information

The FBI found no emails containing "Top Secret" information. They did find some emails that contained content with a lower level of classification. That is, at one point in time or another some federal agency concluded that the content should have been classified even if it was not designated as such at the time Clinton sent, received, or possessed it. It is common for different federal agencies to have differing opinions on the sensitivity of information to the point of meaningful disagreement. All this is to say that almost all of the content deemed sensitive by someone somewhere down the line was not in any way marked or designated with any classification at any time Clinton was dealing with it.

The exceptions were three emails that included sections within them that actually did have a classification notation adjacent to those sections. The notation was a simple "C" for classified. However, the protocol for documents containing classified information is that any such documents should include headers and footers clearly denoting that the document contains classified information. The three subject emails DID NOT have any such header or footer. FBI Director Comey said it would not be unreasonable for a person reading such improperly formatted documents  to assume that they contained no classified information REGARDLESS of any notations within the body of the document. This is an important fact: There is no evidence that Hillary Clinton was aware that she had received, sent, or possessed classified information using her private email server.

The Criminal Investigation Conclusion

The anticipation of a criminal indictment of Hillary Clinton based on the FBI investigation of her emails was palpable in early Summer of 2016. This was especially true for Fox News viewers as various Fox "contributors", such as Monica Crowley, revealed that their sources said an indictment was imminent. The excitement built up until early July when something extraordinary happened. Normally an FBI investigation would would end with an indictment or a low key "no bill" or finding of no prosecutable case with little if any explanation. In an unusual step, FBI Director James Comey held a press conference in which he announced that the Clinton investigation was completed, and the FBI was not recommending an indictment. He said the investigation team was unanimous in its conclusion. This was an apparent attempt to stifle expected outrage from the "lock her up" crowd. But Comey went on to characterize the actions Clinton as extremely careless but stopped short of calling them grossly negligent. This was an apparent attempt to confirm Clinton opponents belief that she did something bad. But the crux of Comey's defense of the FBI's recommendation was that the relevant criminal statutes required intent by the Secretary to share, transmit, destroy, or hide classified information for the purpose of causing harm to the United States of America. [I have asked people in social media who believe Clinton to be a criminal to please cite the law that she broke. The law cited is 18 US Code 793.They cite the elements of criminal action but to a person they simply ignore the word "intent", "willingly", and "knowingly".] A careful reading of the Code reveals that Comey and team were absolutely correct in their decision that "no reasonable prosecutor" would try to prosecute this case.

Sunday, January 01, 2017

Benghazi: All's Fair In Politics IYAR

#BENGHAZI

There are dangerous places in the world. There always have been. And there have always been brave people who have accepted those dangers in service to their countries, both as soldiers and as diplomats. Over the decades the US has lost hundreds of countrymen not engaged in direct military action with its enemies. The loss of US Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others was tragic but not extraordinary. The political fallout, I would assert, was.

The fatal attack on the Benghazi Consulate in Libya was immediately preceded by violent protest across the world, in countries such as Egypt, Yemen, Tunisia, Sudan, India, Pakistan, and Indonesia. In Egypt the US Embassy walls were breached by protesters, and the US flag was replaced by a black Islamist flag. The subject of these protests was a video called "The Innocence of Muslims" released on the Internet that Muslims considered to be an insult to the Prophet Mohammed. Radical leaders used this video to stir up Muslims to commit acts of violence against the US in these several countries. In this context, the initial idea that the attack on the Benghazi Consulate was a protest against that same video can be seen as a very realistic explanation.

The tragedy of the loss of life in Benghazi immediately became a political tool. In the heat of the 2012 presidential campaign, any attack against Americans, especially one characterized as an act of terror, could be seen as detrimental the Obama reelection campaign and ammunition for the Romney campaign. And Romney was quick to fire at Obama while the consulate was still smoldering from the attack. As usual, Obama was more deliberate in his initial response in which he referred to "an act of terror" without explicitly saying that the attack on Benghazi was one. By the weekend, UN Ambassador Susan Rice, given the assignment to represent the administration on the Sunday talk shows, performed the "full Ginsberg" by appearing on all five of the major networks and proclaiming that the attack was the result of a protest against a video clip viewed as insulting Islam. Republicans immediately said that the protest characterization was an obfuscation of the "fact" that the Obama administration was failing in its fight against radical Islam. Politically, the most immediate victim of the attack was Rice, who was blamed for the obfuscation (lying), and who was subsequently denied the planned succession to Secretary of State upon Hillary Clinton's departure. But that was ONLY the beginning.

The Talking Points

The administration and the State Department recognized immediately that the attack on the consulate was an act of terror, probably planned. They began putting together talking points for the president and for the State Department when the attack was discussed with the media. The talking points went through a number of iterations, but the most important edit was the CIA's assertion that the attack emanated from a "spontaneous" protest over the insulting video. Thus, the Rice talking points were a reflection of the CIA's early assessment of the situation. To some degree this interpretation of the tragedy took the onus off of the campaigning Obama; however that was not acceptable to the GOP. As the days went by it became clear that the attack was much more than a spontaneous protest; it was a deliberate, planned attack by organized radicals. Ergo, what the administration had said initially was a lie deliberately manufactured to save the Obama campaign, according to administration opponents. Rice, who did no more than deliver the CIA talking points, was black balled by the Senate GOP.

After multiple Congressional investigations as well as investigations by the State Department and a number of news organizations, it is now known that the attack on Benghazi was a planned attack by Islamic radicals, BUT that the leaders admittedly used the insulting video to enrage and recruit the attackers. Thus, the Rice/CIA talking points were not lies and were consistent with what was known at the time and within the context of world-wide protest over "The Innocence of Muslims".

Hillary's Email to Chelsea

Clinton enemies believed that the focus on the video was a misdirection by her and Obama to relieve them of blame for the Benghazi attack. When Clinton met with the families of the Benghazi victims, two of the family members claimed that she explicitly blamed the death of their loved ones on the video. The GOP believed it was a lie, and they used this claim to stir up outrage against Clinton, even bringing the grieving mother of one of the dead before the Republican National Convention four years later. The investigation into Clinton's emails (more later) brought to light the fact that on the night of the attack Hillary emailed her daughter and also informed a foreign state diplomat that the Benghazi Consulate had been attacked by terrorists. This revelation provided, the GOP believed, the "smoking gun" that Clinton knew all along blaming the video was a lie.

However, to accept this finding as a "smoking gun" one must believe that on the night of the Benghazi attack Hillary Clinton had available intelligence that was immediate, complete, and unambiguous. That this would be the case is laughable. It is very reasonable that her initial reaction would be mitigated by the conclusions of the CIA days later. What Clinton said to the survivors is debated and likely to be clouded by the circumstances, but even if the video were mentioned, it would not have been a lie.

Hillary Left Four Americans To Die

This claim is so absurd it make eyes roll. The State Department is not a military organization and does not have direct control over any military forces. There is simply no context within which it could be said that Hillary could have done anything to save the lives of the Benghazi victims. There is no way in which Clinton could have directed a military counter attack or a rescue operation, and therefore, no circumstance in which she would have or could have issued a "stand down" order of any kind.

Any capability to assist in rescuing the Americans lay with the Defense Department (the military) and the CIA which had personnel only a mile away. The President met with the head of the CIA and the Chairman of the JCOS in the Oval Office at the time of the attack. All have reported that the President instructed both to do what ever was necessary to assist the Americans. There is no evidence or reason to believe that there was a stand down order given by Clinton, Obama, or the top officials of the military or the CIA. Whatever order that may be characterized as a stand down order originated in Libya with local command and was tactical in nature due to the lack of knowledge about opposition forces.

There continues to be dispute over whether and when Chris Stevens requested additional security for himself in Libya. It is the State Department's position that any such request would have been handled at levels below the Secretary. It is also believed that Stevens did not want security beyond his immediate personal guards and the locals who were hired for protection in order to maintain a low profile within Benghazi.

Hundreds of Americans were lost during the Reagan administration at the bombing in Beirut, and many more diplomats have died in service to America over the years. Congressional investigations = 0. But all's fair in politics if you are Republican (IYAR).

Wednesday, December 14, 2016

From First Lady to Secretary of State

Before Bill's second term was ended, Hillary Clinton won a tough race for Senator of New York, becoming the first woman to be First Lady and a sitting US Senator at the same time. As a junior Senator, Clinton did not make a big splash as a legislator, but she quickly gained a reputation as a hard worker who was willing to work with Senators across the aisle. She was instrumental in securing funding for the recovery of the 9/11 attacks, and fought beyond her time in the Senate for health care benefits for Trade Center First Responders. One of her most notable campaign promises was to create 200,000 new jobs in upstate New York, and people who criticize her Senate tenure will point out that she was unable to keep this promise. Bill O'Reilly along with Donald Trump often levied this criticism on Clinton while neglecting to point out that there was an economic downturn in 2001, not no mention the events of 9/11. Regardless, her favorability as former First Lady, her re-election to the Senate in 2006, and her yeoman-like work in the Senate put her in a good position to run for president in 2008. The Clinton's were always known as ambitious and in the early years when Bill was asked about their political plans he was known to often say, "Four years of Bill, four years of Hill!"

So in 2008 it was time to make that plan come true. Unfortunately for them, Hillary faced a strong challenge from Barack Obama. Obama was young, fresh, erudite, and an amazing speaker, as evidenced by his rousing speech at the 2004 DNC Convention. And he was a black man who appeared to be electable. I personally decided to back Obama for all of the above; I liked Hillary and had no gripes about her personally, but the thought of four or eight more years of White Water, Monica, File Gate, Vince Foster and the rest was what swayed me to vote for Obama in the primaries. Ironically, the opposition to Obama by the GOP probably ended up being even worse than what I expected as far as Clinton was concerned. Everything went right for Obama (even with Wright, Alinsky, Ayers, and Rezko), and he achieved a historical win for the presidency.

Clinton soon became Obama's choice for Secretary of State, and Hillary became the world's most admired woman for several years running. Opponents claim that she had no important accomplishments during her tenure, but she was an effective diplomat, and she was instrumental in laying the groundwork for the JCPOA, AKA the Iran Deal, for her successor. Near the end of her time as SOS the US Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, was attacked claiming the lives of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others. The GOP jumped on this tragedy, primarily as a means of attacking President Obama just months before the 2012 election. The person most affected politically by this AT THE TIME was Susan Rice, who performed the "full Ginsberg" on the following Sunday news shows. But Hillary was not so much in the spotlight regarding Benghazi at the time.

Next: The War on Hillary Clinton ramps back up as she leaves the State Department.