A notable lady sitting close behind Hillary Clinton during the former Secretary of State’s testimony on Capitol Hill Thursday was barely mentioned in the media this weekend. Dr. Dorothy Narvaez-Woods, the widow of Navy Seal Tyrone Woods, who was killed with others during the Benghazi attack was in attendance listening to every word Clinton said before the House Select Committee.
It was Dr. Navaez-Woods, a dentist in La Jolla, California when her husband was killed on Sept. 12, 2012, who received a standing ovation a year later when she appeared during a ceremony of the US National UDT-Navy SEAL Museum in Ft. Pierce Florida. The crowd was there to honor the origins of the modern day Navy SEALS and other heroes.
The grieving widow spoke of the hurt and pride she experienced when she learned her husband was gone. She voiced the code of the US Navy SEAL. Then Dr. Navaez-Woods looked at the crowd to give the message, referring to Hillary Clinton, that caused the audience to rise up in applause:
“I knew that at the moment of decision Ty did not say, ‘at this time what difference does it make?’
Mrs. Clinton received much favoritism from many in the mainstream media despite her testimony before the Committee on last week regarding the disastrous attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi. Some of the considerable security failures at the uppermost levels of the Obama administration and Clinton’s State Department were revealed, but under reported. While many in the weekend media were attempting to give her another free pass, others seemed to be saying “not so fast.’
“This is the national-security equivalent of drunken driving,” J. Michael Waller, a defense intelligence expert and government consultant told WND. “She should go to prison for this. When you drink and drive, you know in advance that you’re putting other people in danger.”
Even some Democrats cringed when they heard Clinton testify that the State Department did not have the “amount of money that we thought would be necessary to do what was required to protect everyone.”
This was in direct opposition of early testimony, including State Department official Charlene Lamb who was certain that budget considerations had nothing to do with the decisions about Benghazi security prior to the attack and killing of the U.S. ambassador and other Americans. There is not even one record that the State Department or White House requested additional funding for Libya security.
Many CIA workers previously testified they were puzzled and confused to why Ambassador Chris Stevens continued to remain in Benghazi and why there was not additional security after being warned of the considerable risk. Clinton justified that Stevens was still there by mentioning the “CIA did not have any plans to close their facility.” What she didn’t testify is that the CIA had made the intelligent decision, that her State Department didn’t, by upgrading their security in the region.
Another major mistruth exposed in her testimony is Clinton’s allegations that there was “good back and forth about security” communication between U.S. personnel in Libya and the State Department before the attack. It had earlier been proven by the Accountability Review Board that the Clinton’s Department had a “lack of transparency, responsiveness, and leadership at senior bureau levels” that caused “woefully insufficient” security at the compound.
Clinton was caught in obvious lies during the hearing when she stated, in regard to her friend Sidney Blumenthal’s continuous issuing of intelligence reports to her from Libya, that “I did not ask him to send me the information that he sent me.”
After she was shown that emails proved otherwise, Clinton tried to shake off her many past recurring false statements to just “They started out unsolicited…”
When NBC’s Meet the Press’s Chuck Todd insinuated Chairman of the Committee, Trey Gowdy (Rep-SC) was mentioning Blumenthal’s emails often during the hearings, Gowdy replied “those are not Sidney Blumenthal’s emails. They are Secretary Clinton’s emails to or from Sidney Blumenthal. And every one of them relates to Libya and Benghazi.”
“So I’m not reading Blumenthal emails about bridesmaids dresses or wedding plans or yoga,” Gowdy continued. “These are all about Libya and Benghazi. And to the extent that he was one of the more prolific emailers to her on the subject matter, how do you not ask? How does this person who has no formal role in government and no expertise in Libya or Benghazi, how does he have unfettered access to you, but the ambassador, there is not a single email to or from him?”
“I’ve always also injected an element of wholeness and completeness and also truthfulness in the definition of cooperative,” Gowdy answered when asked if Clinton was cooperative. “I gave her an opportunity to tell me where the 90% to 95% figure comes from. She’s wrong about that. So did she cooperate in answering the question? Yes. Was it an accurate answer? No.”
One technique used by mainstream media editors is to relegate the bad news of their preferred candidates to the weekend, when Americans are less likely to be exposed to it as they pursue other obligations and leisure time. On Saturday and Sunday, fewer Americans were exposed to the fact that many of the allegations toward Clinton are growing and proving to be true. Some are realizing that Clinton lied to federal authorities on violating her signed non-disclosure agreements for extremely sensitive national security classified information and materials.
The situation is so bad, Clinton has resorted to her traditional “it’s a right-wing conspiracy” alibis, but even this those are now only assumed by the most gullible of her admirers and steadfast of the hangers-on. A growing number of Americans, knowing they have the rights, obligation, and ability to gather facts to form intelligent opinions, are simply fed up with dishonesty in politics.
As more information comes to light, allegations and scandals of Clinton’s past are not only coming back to haunt her, but Americans now have a long history to judge her by. When federal investigators were closing in on some alleged offenses from her time as a partner in the Rose Law firm during the Watergate scandal, they subpoenaed Hillary’s billing records in 1994. She told the investigators and reporters she only had a “minor role” and scuffed off the inquiries, similar to how she is approaching the email scandals of today. Later, the Washington Examiner was able to report that “when the records mysteriously turned up in the White House in 1996, they showed she met repeatedly with key figures in the scandal.”
Since the Watergate scandal, Hillary Clinton has built a resume of misdeeds and corruption including Whitewater, Tyson Foodgate, Filegate, Huma Abedin and the Iranian contributions connection, Vince Foster post-death items raids, Peter Franklin Paul, Chinagate, Travelgate, Pardongate, Benghazigate, and the Clinton Foundation frauds.
Perhaps the most telling disgrace was previewed by her actions as a 27-year old staff attorney for the House Judiciary committee investigating the Watergate scandal in 1974.
“She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer,” said her supervisor, Jerry Zeifman. “She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.”
Zeifman, a loyal Democrat fired her, refused to give her a letter of recommendation, called her a liar and more. Over the years, Zeifman and others who knew her back in the younger days, noticed that deceit and corruption has been a constant companion throughout Hillary Clinton’s career.