Video: Krauthammer Brings Up The Obama/Clinton 10:00 Phone Call: ‘There’s the Scandal’

On the O’Reilly Factor, tonight, Charles Krauthammer brought up the 10:00 pm phone call between  Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama, whose activities on the night of the 9/11 attack in Benghazi have yet to be scrutinized. What did he do for those eight hours? Krauthammer posited that the answer to this question could be the biggest scandal of all.

Via Gateway Pundit:

I think there is a bigger story here that will in time come out. The biggest scandal of all, the biggest question is what was the president doing in those eight hours. He had a routine meeting at five o’clock. He never after during the eight hours when our guys have their lives in danger, he never called the Secretary of Defense, he never calls the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, he never called the CIA Director, Who does he call? But five hours in he calls the Secretary of State. And after the phone call she releases a statement essentially about the video and how we denounce any intolerance. It looks as if the only phone call is to construct a cover story at a time when the last two Americans who died were still alive and fighting for their lives. There’s the scandal and that has to be uncovered.”


As you may remember, Clinton said in a statement following the 10:00 pm phone call; “some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet. The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation.”

Frank Gaffney of The Washington Times recently wrote about the Benghazi Scandal’s Female Factor:

Curiously, the truth that has finally begun to emerge has yet to shed light on the involvement of two other women who almost certainly were players before, during and after the Benghazi attacks.

The first is Valerie Jarrett. She is Mr. Obama’s longtime consigliere. Such is her relationship with him and the first lady that she is permitted to involve herself in virtually all portfolios, including the most sensitive foreign affairs and national security ones. That would surely be the case in this instance in light of Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan’s insightful observation:

“The Obama White House sees every event as a political event . Because of that, it could not tolerate the idea that the armed assault on the Benghazi consulate was a premeditated act of Islamist terrorism. That would carry a whole world of unhappy political implications and demand certain actions. And the American presidential election was only eight weeks away. They wanted this problem to go away, or at least to bleed the meaning from it.”

To rephrase Sen. Howard Baker famous questions from an earlier congressional investigation of a presidential cover-up called Watergate: What did Ms. Jarrett do, and when did she do it?

I think the chances that Obama consulted his “longtime consigliere” at some point between 5:00 and 10:00 are extremely high.

Representative Jason Chaffetz has been saying that Obama could face impeachment over the Regime’s response to the Benghazi attack.

 “They purposefully and willfully misled the American people, and that’s unacceptable,” Chaffetz told NRO’s Robert Costa. “It’s part of a pattern of deception.”
That’s why that 10:00 phone call is so important.
Linked by Doug Ross, thanks!

9 thoughts on “Video: Krauthammer Brings Up The Obama/Clinton 10:00 Phone Call: ‘There’s the Scandal’

  1. I know conventional wisdom suggests that the cover-up is a far greater crime than – whatever it is being covered-up. I disagree in this case. Obama and Clinton conspired to concoct a story. What they are hiding is far more important. My rationale is based in knowing both the IRS and AP scandals were hand delivered to the press by the administration. Consider how big these two issues are and consider that whatever Obama and Clinton are hiding is even bigger. What could be so bad as to have both the public at large and the media both nipping at their heels?
    It is no secret that the administration sent in the CIA to locate and take control of missiles in Libya. When the Benghazi attack occurred there were ~30 people at the location attacked. At least 25 of those were CIA. This explains why congress has been unable to interview those who survived – at least publicly.
    Stevens was meeting with a diplomat from Turkey just prior to the attack. No coincidence that the arms being recovered by the CIA were being shipped to Turkey – who was then sending the weapons to Syria.
    Paula Broadwell provided some insight into the attack (prior to the Petraeus affair being uncovered) when speaking publicly in Colorado, saying that the CIA was holding two Libyan militiamen at the attack site. She suggested that as a viable motive for the attack – to liberate the detainees. Of course the subsequent reveal that she was Petraeus’ mistress provided a viable cover for Petraeus’ dismissal. Certainly the affair was adequate grounds for dismissal but not nearly as important as him sharing classified information with Broadwell.
    Then there are the reports that Gen. Hamm had been relieved of his command on the night of the attack. Reports suggested that he was prepared to disobey orders (from Washington) and was preparing to mount support for those under attack. His second in command relieved him… cover story: Hamm left active duty due to illness in his family.
    As for what is being covered up, I offer my fantasy scenario. Arab Spring. We all remember Arab Spring. Obama supported the Muslim Brotherhood effort to take control of Libya and Egypt. Syria was next in line to fall but Assad has been tenacious. Obama needed to supply the MB with weapons but could not do so directly, hence the Libya-Turkey-Syria connection.
    All the while Obama supports and props up the MB he is simultaneously working to deconstruct the USA. Muslim violence has been for the most part, muslim on muslim. Muslim countries have been ruled by dictatorial types who generally held self interest as their highest goal. Muslim countries fought with other Muslim countries. Muslim tribes fought with other muslim tribes. What happens if a majority of muslim countries fall under control of a single power holder (i.e. Muslim Brotherhood)?
    While Obama bankrupts the country, while he downsizes our military, while he corrupts society with his own brand of racism – he builds up the Muslim Brotherhood to provide a single source ruling party for all muslims. I suspect Obama is like all the other muslim rulers and is acting in self interest alone.
    The two senior people who are at the fulcrum of what happened in Banghazi are Petraeus and Gen. Hamm. Petraeus could testify as to what was happening in Banghazi and why the attack occurred. Gen. Hamm could testify as to the true reason no help was provided to save the people in Banghazi.
    We are continually told by our congress critters that they need move slowly, methodically, up the chain to those in charge. Honestly, is there time for that? And who is to say our congress critters won’t settle for a whole lot less than the truth? Like that has never happened before…
    So, what happens when a majority of those peace-loving muslims fall under some form of unified MB control? Where does Obama see himself fitting into that picture?
    We need go back to history and recall how the German people, Europe, the world at large allowed Hitler and his Nazi Party to rise in power – and what was done with that power. The parallel between that time and now is found in the political correctness that dictates and criticism of Obama is racist and the political correctness dictating Islam as good and Christians and Jews as bad, etc. Hitler wasn’t so bad. Obama is not so bad.
    I would like to believe we are not rushing headlong into WWIII but watching the fun-loving RHINOs in congress fiddle while the world burns offers little comfort.


  2. Virtually everyone involved in this scandal has lied, from the perpetrators of the scandal to the “investigators” (including the head of the House committee, Issa, who has had so far nearly nine months to uncover basic facts and hasn’t even come close – everything we’ve learned so far has been as a result of outside forces, not his committee’s “grueling” inquiry).

    There’s enough swamp in this whole mess to make even Pelousy comfortable.

    And speaking of scandals, who was the traitor who gave Jarrett unfettered national security clearance to view (illegally in most cases) all the files involved in Duh-1’s enemies list? Aren’t there supposed to be certain standards involved with such clearance? (Of course, with the government allowing the Chinese to know everything military that we know, maybe the standards have dropped just a tad with these folks.)


  3. I agree with John, it’s pretty much a scenario I’ve discussed for months now. There is “something” lurking in the shadows swirling around all of these scandals that have come to light, so far. The dimoCraps are petrified of this additional “incident” coming to light. On the other hand the Republicans are mostly interested in drawing this thing out as long as possible, through the summer and into the fall and the election. Multiple committees investigating this is only for the self promotion of members of the committees involved with upcoming elections. Appointing a “Special Prosecutor” [or the equivalent] would pretty much shut down any investigations being conducted in either house of Congress and most likely a “Select Committee”, if one were appointed. However, it’s the last thing the administration wants fearing that this “other issue” will come to light.

    Petraeus and Hamm, as John has stated are clearly major elements of any legitimate investigation. I’ve said so for months now that they need to be called and testify. The hasty exit of both of these guys was way to convenient and timely. I’ve always maintained that the Petraeus incident was “sitting in someone’s top draw, waiting to be used against him.” The General Hamm incident also draws suspicion. Petraeus gave testimony behind closed doors before hitting the door and since then it’s come to light that he wasn’t pleased with the changes being made to the talking points for Rice. I believe he has much more to offer, along with Hamm if called.

    Carlos also nails a important issue with the Security Clearances. There are dozens of people surrounding this President [including himself] who would not pass a background investigation when it come to security clearances with some of their past associates.


  4. There is, plainly and clearly repeated multiple times in the Benghazi hearings, the “unclassified” version and the “classified” version, evidenced by the light treading and work-arounds going on. And then, there is the “international” version. Eyewitness accounts on the ground, Libyans fighting for a democracy. There are factors much larger at stake in a broader picture, an even bigger cover up. I am beginning to think the U.N. is involved as well. The same day of the “mission” attack, newly elected Libyan Prime Minister, Dr. Mustafa Abushagur was quoted as saying the following day, “I condemn these barbaric acts in the strongest possible terms. This is an attack on America, Libya, and free people everywhere”.


  5. Pingback: » Video: Krauthammer Brings Up The Obama/Clinton 10:00 Phone …

  6. Pingback: Larwyn’s Linx: Holder Personally Sued in Massive Tea Party Abuse Lawsuit | Preppers Universe

  7. “…both the IRS and AP scandals were hand delivered to the press by the administration.”

    This. More than anything, this. The IRS and AP scandals are nothing but squirrels, exposed to take our attention off the four dead Americans in Benghazi.


  8. Where was Valerie Jarrett during the Benghazi attacks? Did Obama have any discussions with her? It would be tough to believe that he didn’t.

    Unless, of course, the explanation of Obama’s failure to do anything is that Jarrett was unavailable to tell him what to do.


  9. Pingback: As The Worm Turns | Hump Day Report

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s