Judge: Hillary May Face Prosecution On Benghazi

• 
  

AUTHOR Bookworm

Of the many fascinating facts that emerged yesterday from the testimony that three high-level, career State Department employees gave to Congress, one of the most compelling, and easily provable, was that Hillary Clinton was lying to Congress when she testified before it in January 2013.
When Hillary was asked about how four Americans died in Libya, she famously responded “With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest, or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided they’d go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make?” Hillary made a further effort to distance herself from the attack’s causation by saying “People were trying in real time to get to the best information.”

Both those assertions are bald-faced lies. We now know that the moment the attacks began, everyone closely involved, including Ambassador Stevens himself, knew that it was a terrorist attack. Moreover, we know that Gregory Hicks, who was in Tripoli at the time of the attacks, and was first in command in Libya after Ambassador Stevens vanished from the scene, was in contact with the State Department telling them in real time what was happening.
Clinton also testified that she never received requests for additional security in the months leading up to the attack, stating “I did not see these requests. They did not come to me. I did not approve them. I did not deny them.” The problem with that statement is that there’s a document dated April 22, 2013 with her electronic signature acknowledging receipt of those requests. Her supporters are saying that doesn’t prove that she saw it but, in a legal context, it does. If her agents (meaning her immediate subordinates) saw it and signed it on her behalf, their knowledge is imputed to her. That’s how hierarchies work.
Fox News’ Judge Andrew Napolitano says that Hillary’s lies to Congress are prosecutable offenses:

The legal implications for the administration are profound and for Mrs. Clinton would be personal and extremely profound — because if what James Rosen has so wonderfully reported can be demonstrated under oath and in a credible way out of the mouths of James’s sources, that would substantially contradict Mrs. Clinton’s testimony. No I don’t know if her testimony was given under oath, but it doesn’t matter because lying to Congress carries the same criminal liability and the same punishment as lying under oath to Congress .
I’m not suggesting that missus Clinton lied, but I’m saying that a case could be made out either legally in a courtroom, if a prosecutor wanted to, and certainly politically in in the public sphere, should she decide to seek higher office, that she materially misled the congress during that famous “what difference does it make?” testimony of hers which was substantially at odds with what James is reporting his sources have told.

It turns out, Hillary, that “it” — meaning what did you know, when did you know it, and what did you do — makes a lot of difference at this point.