So. That whole nightmare in September of 2012 that ended with the death of an ambassador was all part of a riot that sprung up in response to a YouTube video. It certainly wasn’t because it was 9/11. It certainly wasn’t Islamic extremists. The Secretary of State didn’t have any idea the consulate was asking for more security, and there were no troops in range of the Ambassador.

Oh, sorry. Those are all from reports and statements that predate yesterday’s hearings. My mistake.

It turns out every one of those things is untrue.

The Secretary of State knew early in the morning of September 12th that there was no protest. She spoke to the Deputy Chief of Mission in Libya, Gregory Hicks, at around 2AM Libyan time. That puts it around 6PM on September 11th in Washington.

Hillary knew there was no protest, but continued to mention it for months. In fact, when testifying under oath, Secretary Clinton stated that “I [Secretary Clinton] certainly did not know of any reports that contradicted the IC [Intelligence Community] Talking Points at the time that Ambassador Rice went on the TV shows”.

Well, after months of being denied the chance to speak to congress, Gregory Hicks testified that he spoke to Secretary Clinton that night. In fact, he stated later in the hearing that no one on the ground in Libya EVER reported there was a protest.

To me, that sounds like perjury. Either Secretary Clinton is correct in her testimony, and she was solely informed that the attack followed a protest until after Ambassador Rice went on the sunday morning talk shows, or Gregory Hicks is correct that he specifically briefed her that there was no protest. These statements are mutually exclusive.

One of them lied under oath. One of them is hiding something.

Coming in Part 2: Were Military Forces within range of Benghazi?