Yep. The Benghazi Hearings hit pay dirt and according to The Wall Street Journal, the investigation turned up PROOF that, well... hell, let me have author Strassel tell it in her opening paragraph of an article entitled "She Knew All Along":
By KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL
Updated Oct. 23, 2015 1:00 p.m. ET
Thanks to Hillary Clinton’s Benghazi testimony on Thursday, we now understand why the former secretary of state never wanted anyone to see her emails and why the State Department sat on documents. Turns out those emails and papers show that the Obama administration deliberately misled the nation about the deadly events in Libya on Sept. 11, 2012.
So there you have it, conservatives. 'She Knew'.
Right.
And the rest of the article is just as much bullshit twisting the committee's
questions into
answers proving it. Now, mind you, Madame Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
didn't affirm the statements in those questions. But by Gawd: it's there! In the QUESTION!!
Let's review 'things' which happen to be facts:
1. Beginning a question stating, "Isn't it true that..." , then saying anything the speaker wants afterwards DOES NOT MAKE THE STATED 'QUESTION' TRUE.
2. Former First Lady Clinton encouraged the Department to release her emails (which weren't anyone's business) and THEY DID.
3. Hillary Clinton was not in charge of Embassy, let alone State Department, security though it was a Republican controlled Congress which insisted reducing Department funding for such things.
4. Former Senator Hillary Clinton did not have authority to call airstrikes, summon forces or shoot her .45 from the roof.
5. Secretary Of State Clinton didn't know an attack was coming because no one else knew either..., couldn't have known why it was happening... and like anyone else reading reports she could only theorize what was going on as evidenced by the emails.
Far be it for me to question the journalistic integrity and accuracy of any reporter from the Wall Street Journal, but,
"Damn Strassel, Isn't it true, just before you wrote that article you took a hit from the editor's acid stash in the blue jar, far right corner of his desk? Because shit, that whole thing was broadcast live and recorded, din'cha know?!
"
More below the Strassle Tassle
Following Ms. Strassels' 'lede' here's my example of something and how even I can prove :Hillary Clinton.
Isn't it true that the Boston RedSox catcher chased a flyball hit by the Yankee outfielder down the third base line and because you didn't immediately jump to your feet and cheer, he was unable to make the put out which gave the Yankees the win on the ensuing homerun? Hillary Clinton.
I propose and recommend from hereon, whenever the author of that 'editorial' spews forth an opinion, it be known as "One of Strassel's Tassels", a bit of glittering obfuscation covering little of the hoped-for truth for the purpose of tantalizing the immature viewer and arousing a prurient interest thereafter.
However, since the WSJ 'elects' to participate in this 'partisan-pasties-game', perhaps thousands of its readers too busy to listen to a smidgen of the hearing where A Very Majestic H. Clinton 'responded' to 'questions' demonstrably proved beyond any question, this sham-inquiry is now defunct. And this will instead be certain to remain a Republican Nightmare: President Hillary Clinton.
However, thanks to the Strassel's Tassels in the subject piece, the Republican 'lawmakers' behind these hijinx will not be compelled to wear their Halo of Shame back home for violating duties under the Constitution; having made a political spectacle of themselves for a blatantly improper purpose: (attempted) destroying a candidate running for President, thereby wasting nearly $5 million bucks and detracting time and energy from pressing duties. Oh, like maybe a budget.
Ah, but what's a budget got to do with Wall Street's Fortunes, anyway? Not like there would be a financial crash, now. (Yes, I know there is a proposed budget,,, now anyway... wasn't one when I wrote this and perhaps Hillary's Testimony is one of the reasons???)
WSJ , has again shown the judgement and acumen most of us have long expected from 'mainstream' editorial staff opinions composed of submitted Republican talking points.
Pardon me, but Hillary was correct when she said 'enemies'. And she may have earned my vote for that. Republicans demonstrably want a broken government and angry constituency because they've jigger-mandered districts and shittled voting access to the point that if most of their angst-driven supporters voting 'against Planned Parenthood' and wanting to make 'America Great Again' show up, the elections can be kept close. Which keeping the status quo means bankers continue gains and the angry can still find sand to pound and lemons to suck. And: HILLARY CLINTON
Let's all give the WSJ a Tip of the Hat for giving 'Boy Howdy and his Gang of Punk Prosecutors' the Emperor's thumbs up, so they can salvage 'some print' back home and perhaps keep the faux facade of 'investigation' relevant to the cerebrally challenged. Hillary Clinton