IF YOU THINK THE BENGHAZI ATTACK WAS NOT COVERED-UP BY OBAMA, THINK AGAIN!

Stunning new revelations at House Benghazi hearing

Brave men risk their careers to dispute the Obama administration narrative

Dear Conservatives,

Congressional hearings are frequently tedious affairs, often dominated by Members of Congress making speeches rather than posing questions of witnesses.

Not yesterday’s House Benghazi hearing. See The New York Post story below (highlights added).

Stunning new revelations included:

Gregory Hicks, the Libya Deputy Mission Chief, testified that he called an acting assistant secretary to dispute Susan Rice’s claim made on Sunday news shows, that the attack was prompted by a video. Hicks said he was told to drop that line of questioning. Hicks further testified that, during the following month, his performance was criticized by superiors, including receiving a “blistering critique” of his management style. Hicks made it clear he felt he was being punished for refusing to go along with the administration narrative, and in fact was demoted. Hicks also testified that Cheryl Mills, then Chief of Staff for Hillary Clinton, told him he could not speak to Rep. Jason Chaffetz, when Chaffetz traveled to Libya to investigate, without a State Department attorney present. Hicks called the attorney “the minder”—in other words, the person assigned to monitor what Hicks said. Mark Thompson, an official with the State Department counterterrorism unit, testified that the Foreign Emergency Support Team (FEST), was not allowed to respond to the attack. Thompson noted that FEST was specifically created to respond to just such attacks.

For those of you who didn’t see the hearing, it’s worth watching, especially questions posed by Rep. Chaffetz, Rep. Jim Jordan, and a testy exchange between Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton and the three witnesses.

Here’s perhaps the most important thing the American people need to keep in mind.

These three witnesses jeopardized their careers, and certainly made enemies, because of their courage to come forward and tell what they knew. “Whistleblowers” are not treated kindly in Washington. Much of what they said directly contradicts the administration narrative of what happened and how the administration responded. These three men had nothing to gain—politically or career-wise—by doing so. What motivation could they possibly have to lie?