Hillary on The Hill

Last Thursday Hillary Clinton testified before the House Select Committee on Benghazi, and if you only read headlines (or are a bat-blind partisan) you probably believe "nothing new" was revealed. However, that belief is 180 degrees backwards.

To recap: Four Americans, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens, were killed by Islamist terrorists who attacked our consulate in Benghazi, Libya on September 11th -- note that date -- of 2012. After the attack, Clinton, along with the rest of the Obama administration, publicly claimed that it was not deliberate but was instead the result of a spontaneous protest that spontaneously spun out of control. Clinton claimed that the terrirorists protesters did their killing because of understandable offense they had taken to a short video on YouTube.

Those claims were eventually proven to be false. In reality, the attacks were pre-planned (and pre-threatened) by an al Qaeda affiliate to commemorate the 11th anniversary of 9/11.

Conservatives have long insisted that the claims were not merely wrong, but were in fact a deliberate lie. They have insisted that those who made the claims knew all along that the attacks were pre-planned, and that those who made the claims chose to hide the truth because the 2012 election was weeks away. To admit the truth would be to admit that Obama's beloved talking point about al Qaeda being "on the run" was false -- an admission which could have doomed his chances of being re-elected.

Well, last week's hearings proved that conservatives have been right all along, and I have a hard time understanding how that translates into nothing new being revealed.

While the attack was happening, Gregory Hicks advised Clinton of it and stated that it was a terrorist attack. No mention of a protest gone awry. In case you're wondering, Hicks was the deputy chief of mission in Libya for the U.S. State Department, which Clinton was in charge of at the time.

In testimony, Hicks -- who would know, since he was there and serving as deputy chief of mission -- steadfastly upheld that the video was "a non-event" in Libya.

Last week we learned that on the very night of the attack, Clinton spoke with the prime ministers of Libya and Egypt and told them things which were: 1) diametrically opposite from what she told the American people via the media, and 2) diametrically opposite from what she told the families of the deceased to their very faces.

When speaking to Egyptian PM Hisham Kandil that night, Clinton said: "We know the attack had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack, not a protest." (emphases mine)

After midnight she sent an email to her daughter which read that "(t)wo of our officers were killed in Benghazi by an al Qaeda-like group."

An hour after sending that email, she spoke with Obama by phone; and almost immediately after that, the U.S. State Department -- which, remember, she was in charge of -- officially released her "protest over a video" lie.

Three days later, when the bodies of the deceased were returned to our shores, she was still telling that lie to the public. Specifically, during the sacred transfer-of-remains ceremony, she said this: "We've seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful Internet video that we had nothing to do with."

According to Charles Woods, whose Navy SEAL son Tyrone was one of the deceased, she looked him in the eyes when Tyrone's body arrived at Andrews Air Force Base and said: "We will make sure that the person who made that film is arrested and prosecuted."

And sure enough, that amateur filmmaker was soon behind bars. At Clinton's urging, our federal government left the perps alone while unleashing its prosecutorial wrath on a 55-year-old immigrant who had merely exercised his First Amendment right of free expression.

So what we have here is this: A powerful person who is running to be President of the United States Is found to have lied directly to the family members of U.S. servicemen who were killed while carrying out their duties -- and is found to have lied to the American public about their deaths -- but is found to have told the truth to foreign governments about their deaths -- and the timing makes it nakedly obvious that her lying was done to sway the outcome of a presidential election -- yet the mainstream media reports that "nothing new" has been discovered, and her fans consider her to have "won" because she managed to look composed while she was being exposed as a craven, dishonest, power-hungry reprobate with no regard for human decency.

Do you believe for one second that if a hearing proved such things about a Republican, the media would have treated it as "nothing new" and the Republican's supporters would have considered it a victory?

The media malpractice is galling, but the indifference of Democrat voters is despicable. Those who paid attention last week and still support Clinton have made a choice to do so despite knowing full well that she is morally depraved and philosophically dishonest. As far as I am concerned, people who would make such a choice do not even deserve to be listened to when they start volunteering their views.