Benghazi Update: First Official Criminal Charges Filed in the Deadly Attack

Breitbart reported: The Justice Department has filed the first criminal charges in the deadly attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, two U.S. officials said Tuesday.

The officials confirmed that a sealed complaint was filed in U.S. District Court in Washington against an unspecified number of individuals in the September 2012 attack that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans. One official said those charged included Ahmed Abu Khattala, the head of a Libyan militia. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss a sealed filing.

The New York Times reported late Tuesday that Khattala had been charged with murder and that he has said in an interview that he is innocent. At least two other foreigners have been charged in the attacks, the newspaper said.

Earlier, CNN, NBC News and The Wall Street Journal reported that unspecified counts had been filed and sealed in the Benghazi attack.

“The department’s investigation is ongoing. It has been, and remains, a top priority,” said Justice Department spokesman Andrew C. Ames, who declined to comment further.

A key Republican urged the administration to do more than file charges.

“Osama bin Laden had been criminally charged long before the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks but was not apprehended,” Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., the chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said in a statement. U.S. Navy SEALS killed bin Laden in Pakistan on May 2, 2011. “Delays in apprehending the suspected Benghazi killers,” Issa added, “will only put American lives at further and needless risk.”

The Associated Press reported in May that American officials had identified five men who might be responsible for the Sept. 11, 2012, attack in Benghazi that occurred just weeks before President Barack Obama’s re-election. The suspects were not named publicly, but the FBI released photos of three of the five suspects, asking the public to provide more information on the men pictured. The images were captured by security cameras at the U.S. diplomatic post during the attack, but it took weeks for the FBI to see and study them. The FBI and other U.S. intelligence agencies identified the men through contacts in Libya and by monitoring their communications. They are thought to be members of Ansar al-Shariah, the Libyan militia group whose fighters were seen near the U.S. diplomatic facility prior to the violence.

Waiting to prosecute the suspects instead of grabbing them now could add to the political burden the Benghazi case already has placed on Obama and Democrats who want to succeed him in 2016.

Since Obama’s re-election, Republicans in Congress have condemned the administration’s handling of the matter, criticizing the level of embassy security and questioning the talking points provided to U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice for her public explanation of the attack. Conservatives have suggested that the White House tried to play down the incident to minimize its effect on the president’s campaign.

Republicans also have taken political aim at Hillary Rodham Clinton, who was secretary of state at the time of the attack and is a possible Democratic presidential contender in 2016.

In an interview with the Times in October, Khattala said he had arrived at the American compound in Benghazi as gunfire broke out but that he had played no role in the attack. He told the newspaper that he entered the compound at the end of the siege in an attempt to rescue Libyan guards who worked for the Americans and were trapped.

Khattala accused American leaders of using the Benghazi attack to play “with the emotions of the American people” in an effort to “gather votes for their elections,” according to the Times.

Obama: Refuses to Address Nation on Terror Threats

The White House Dossier reports: President Obama continues to say nothing to a jittery nation about what some who have been briefed on the danger are describing as the worst terrorist threat since 9/11, declining to either offer reassurance or an explanation of the peril the nation faces.

Certainly, the president does not want to take questions about a threat he had minimized during the 2012 campaign. But what’s striking is that he has not addressed the nation in a formal manner on the potential for a major attack.

Incredibly, the first question Obama might take on the situation could come from a comedian. Obama is scheduled to appear on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno this evening in California, and the topic is sure to come up. He has an event earlier in the day, but it’s a campaign-style appearance at a high school in Phoenix, also an odd venue to be discussing potential terrorist attacks.

Not everyone has been excluded from receiving a high-level briefing. Vice President Joe Biden has met with members of Congress to discuss the threat, and some of the most specific information about what the United States is faced with has come from lawmakers.

Briefing reporters Monday, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney did not minimize the problem. “This threat is significant and we are taking it seriously for that reason,” he said.

But Carney refused to specifically characterize the extent of the danger to the United States itself.

“I would say that the threat is emanating from and may be directed towards the Arabian Peninsula, but it is beyond that, potentially,” he said.

Avoiding sharing much useful information, Carney spoke generally of the administration’s stance on terror. “I think that the threat from al Qaeda and affiliated organizations to the United States and to the American people has been a reality that we’ve talked about for a long time now.”

Instead of a proper grilling on the issue, the best the press has been able to do is shout “happy birthday” to Obama as he returned from two-day celebration with friends at Camp David Sunday.

[Video] Lois Lerner: Speaks at Duke’s Sanford School of Public Policy in 2010, ‘Everyone is Up In Arms Because They Don’t Like It’

Brietbart reports: Newly uncovered video shows Lois Lerner discussing the political pressure that swirled around the IRS in 2010. Lerner says “everyone” was “screaming at” the IRS to stop the flood of money pouring into the 2010 elections through 501(c)(4) groups as a result of Citizens United.

Lerner spoke to a small group at Duke’s Sanford School of Public Policy on October 19, 2010, just two weeks before the wave election that brought the Tea Party and Republicans significant gains in Congress. During her appearance Lerner was asked about the flow of money from corporations to 501(c)(4) groups. “Everyone is up in arms because they don’t like it” Lerner replied, adding “Federal Election Commission can’t do anything about it; they want the IRS to fix the problem.”

Lerner goes on to outline the fact that 501(c)(4) organizations have the right to do “an ad that says vote for Joe Blow” so long as their primary activity is social welfare. However Lerner again emphasizes the political pressure the IRS was under at the time saying, “So everybody is screaming at us right now ‘Fix it now before the election. Can’t you see how much these people are spending?'” Lerner concludes by saying she won’t know if organizations have gone too far in campaigning until she looks at their “990s next year.”

Contrary to Lerner’s statement, everyone did not object to the Citizens United decision. The pushback was clearly partisan with the most high profile opponent being President Obama himself. Days after the decision, Obama used his weekly radio address to attack the ruling saying it would “open the floodgates” to special interest advertising in elections.

A few days later Obama castigated the Supreme Court during his State of the Union address. Speaking to a national audience with members of the Court in attendance Obama stated, “Last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates to special interests including foreign corporations to spend without limit in our elections.”

The President’s State of the Union reference to Citizens United ended with a call for Congress to reverse the decision by law. The so-called DISCLOSE act was given strong backing by the President throughout 2010 in an attempt to stop what Democrats saw as a flood of campaign money. The White House blog describes the President “pounding his hand on his pedestal” as he advocated for the act’s passage in the summer of 2010.

Lerner’s statements in late 2010 demonstrate that the IRS was keenly aware of the political firestorm taking place and demands that her organization do something to stop the flow of money from corporations to political campaigns. While Lerner is unequivocal that she can do nothing about the legal political activity of 501(c)(4) groups, it is a remarkable coincidence that the extra scrutiny given applications by Tea Party and 9/12 groups, which began in March 2010, had the effect of hampering the very activity which she says “everyone” wanted the IRS to stop.

It is also noteworthy that Lois Lerner paraphrases President Obama’s framing of the issue when she says, “the Supreme Court dealt it a huge blow, overturning a hundred year old precedent that said basically corporations can give directly in political campaigns.” Was she aware who was making this political argument she seems to have adopted wholesale?

There is evidence that a political appointee was aware of the targeting of Tea Party groups at the exempt organizations division of the IRS. However, Obama’s high profile pushback on Citizens United in late January 2010 probably insured the IRS would pay attention simply because it insured the topic would be a high profile news story.

TIGTA’s report contains a few key redactions which conceal precisely how the scrutiny of Tea Party groups began. Reading between the lines it seems media attention played a role. Plans by a Tea Party group to create a new 501(c)(4) were featured in stories at the NY Times and NPR just a couple weeks after Obama’s statements about Citizens United. These stories apparently caught the attention of the IRS which regularly monitors news stories to be aware of developing issues. Of course it’s possible the IRS would have caught this regardless, but President Obama’s highlighting of the issue just a couple weeks earlier certainly gave the subject additional news value.

Though the Obama administration initially expressed outrage over the IRS targeting of Tea Party, it has since labeled it a “phony scandal.” Democrats have argued that progressive groups also received scrutiny from the IRS. However these claims of non-partisanship never explain the leak of private information from the IRS to left-leaning Pro-Publica in 2012.

More significantly, IRS data shows that 100 percent of Tea Party applications were scrutinized and that almost no applications were approved for a period of two years. Most were finally cleared in mid 2012 after a letter from Congress inquiring about the hold up finally led to a flurry of approvals.

Senior Advisor-in-Chief: Did Valerie Jarrett Issue the Order to Stand Down in Benghazi?

Rush Limbaugh reported today that Conservative Report issued a story that pegged Valerie Jarrett as giving the ‘Stand Down’ order in Benghazi.

The Conservative Report, issued a story today indicating that Valerie Jarrett may have given the order to stand down in Benghazi.  Valerie Jarrett, who constitutionally is not in the chain of command and cannot do issue these commands.  If this is true, it would be a bombshell.

The Conservative Report reported: Confidential sources close to Conservative Report have confirmed that Valerie Jarrett was the key decision-maker for the administration, the night of the Benghazi terrorist attack on 9/11/2012.

The chronology of the evening of 9/11 are as follows:

At approximately 5 PM Washington time, reports came in through secure-channels that Special Mission Benghazi was under attack. Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey summoned the President,and briefed him on the crisis, face to face.

Subsequent to that brief meeting, President Obama proceeded to the White House to dine in his living quarters.

After supper, Barack Obama had a telephone conference scheduled with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Senior Advisor to the President, Valerie Jarrett was present for that conference, which was held due to problems the President was having with the perception of him snubbing Netanyahu in previous, formal encounters.

The telephone call between Obama and Netanyahu carried on for a full two-hours, creating the appearance of respect between the two world leaders.

As that meeting drew to a close, Ms. Jarrett, who is also the Assistant to the President for Public Engagement and Intergovernmental Affairs, went from the living quarters to the White House Situation Room, where the attack in Benghazi was being monitored by Dempsey, Panetta and other top-ranking officials.

Whether she was instructed by the President to go there, or if she went of her own volition,  is only known by the President and herself.

A critical question that needed to be answered, and the sole military-order that could have launched offensive-actions, neutralizing the Ansar al Sharia terrorists attacks on the Mission (the purpose of which is detailed here) and its subsequent attacks on the adjacent CIA Annex, was the issuance of “Cross Border Authority”, an order that can only be issued by the Commander in Chief, himself.

As was reported earlier by Conservative Report, Cross Border Authority was denied.

Two revelations are deeply troubling:

First, it is reported that an Army Special Forces team was present with an AC-130U Spooky (also known as a Spectre Gunship) on the tarmac at the airport in Tripoli, Libya. The Spooky is a technologically sophisticated, tactical aircraft, operated by the U.S. Air Force Special Operations Command.

It operates under the overall Special Operations Command stationed at MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa, which is reportedly in charge of all military special operations units, including: Army Special Forces, Navy SEALS, Rangers and certain Marine units, as well as the USAF AC-130Us, and “stealth Blackhawks,” used in the Bin Laden raid.

The AC-130U Spooky is equipped with weapons that sync with laser-designators, like those that Woods, Doherty and Ubben had on that lonely rooftop above the CIA Annex. The laser-designator was used to “paint” the mortar targets during the attack, subsequently claiming the lives of Woods and Doherty, and leaving Ubben without a leg. Had the AC-130U been on station, over the CIA Annex in Benghazi, moments before the mortar rounds were fired, instead of “awaiting further instructions,” the entire outcome of the Benghazi fiasco would have been different.

Add to that, a team of Green Berets on the ground to secure and/or evacuate the Annex, and the outcome would have been two SEALS still alive, and a mess of dead terrorists.

The second, and most troubling aspect of the refusal to issue Cross Border Authority is, who issued the refusal. Rather than the President, the Commander In Chief, making critical decisions, granting or denying the authority to initiate offensive-actions in support of our valiant fighting men, the decision not to take action was made by a person, to whom the people did not elect, nor did the Congress have confirmation power over.