Clinton Advisors, Supporters Compared Planned Parenthood Hearings to Benghazi Hearings

The day Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards testified before Congress in the aftermath of videos showing Planned Parenthood affiliated physicians and managers bargaining over the price of fetal body parts harvested from unborn babies, a top Clinton supporter compared the hearing to Hillary Clinton’s performance in hearings about the Benghazi debacle. Gina Glantz, formerly of Planned Parenthood Action Fund and now of Gender Avenger, emailed several top Clinton aides to ask that Clinton call Richards in the hours after the hearing and drew the comparison between the Benghazi hearings and the Planned Parenthood hearing.

“Writing to you all hoping someone will suggest that Hillary call Cecile Richards tonight,” Glantz put in the subject line of an e-mail sent to Clinton advisors Katie Dowd, Joel Benenson, Tamera Luzzatto, Minyon Moore and Mandy Grunwald on September 29, 2015 just hours after Richards finished her testimony on Capitol Hill. Praising Richards for standing “up so well” under the “grilling,” Glantz said a phone call from Clinton to Richards would be good politics.

“Good for HRC politics and Cecile. Now Cecile knows what it feels like to be Hillary in front of the Benghazi committee. Anyway would be a great tweet from HRC that she spoke to Cecile.”

The e-mail came to light as part of the massive WikiLeaks document dump.

Mandy Grunwald, senior advisor to Hillary Clinton and Sen. Elizabeth Warren, replied to Glantz, “Thanks Gina. We always want your advice. I will pass on to those who might make this happen.”

Not one person on the chain pushed back on Glantz’s assertion that the Planned Parenthood hearing was the equivalent of the Benghazi hearing. The only thing similar between the hearings, besides a high profile female subject appearing before Congress, is the fact that both events involved Americans dying while the government refuses to prevent their death.

On September 11, 2012, the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya was attacked by radical Islamic terrorists. In the ferocious fighting that followed, four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stephens, died. In the aftermath of the affair then-Secretary of State Clinton downplayed her role in her agency’s failure to provide greater security to the Benghazi mission even though such security was requested multiple times in advance of the attack.

At a Senate hearing about the Benghazi attack, Clinton pushed back on a question from Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI), asking “What difference – at this point – does it make?” Johnson had asked about the source of the attack, which some Obama Administration officials had pinned on a mostly unknown YouTube video.

Three years later, Cecile Richards of Planned Parenthood visited Capitol Hill to testify at a hearing about federal funds that go to her organization, which is the largest abortion provider in the country. Federal funds may not be spent on abortions, but video footage released in the summer of 2015 found Planned Parenthood officials and physicians negotiating the sale of aborted fetal body parts collected from abortions, something that violates federal law.

That high profile advisors so close to Clinton were comfortable with – or at least silent toward – a former Planned Parenthood Action Fund (the political arm of the abortion provider) leader comparing Benghazi to abortions that result in the sale of fetal tissue is astonishing.

“Trustworthy” Hillary Clinton Deleted Benghazi Emails

Turns out that not all of the emails Secretary of State Hillary Clinton deleted from her private server dealt with yoga and dinner plans. Unless, that is, Clinton was doing yoga at a studio named Benghazi, or Benghazi was the name of some local fair-trade organic grocery store. The Associated Press reported Tuesday afternoon that lawyers with the State Department informed a federal judge that some 30 emails related to Benghazi were discovered among those that Clinton deleted from her private e-mail server. An undisclosed number of the emails were not turned over to federal investigators during their probe of Clinton’s creative email practices.

In a demonstration of just how slowly the government works, federal lawyers told the judge presiding over the email release case that it would be late September before they could redact any confidential/classified information from the 30 or so documents and release them to the public. The judge has urged them to shorten that timeline.

Remarkably, Democrats have not abandoned Clinton en masse since her self-inflicted email scandal first began. Once it became clear that the grouchy socialist from Vermont wasn’t going to clench the Democratic presidential nomination, the Democratic Party’s top candidates, officials and operatives fell in line behind the Clinton machine.

Among those Democrats who have backed Clinton is Wisconsin Sen. Russ Feingold, who is running this year to recapture his old Senate seat, which he lost in 2010 to Republican Sen. Ron Johnson. Asked about Clinton earlier this week, Feingold called her “reliable and trustworthy” and went on to say:

“What I’m saying is, it’s a whole other thing when somebody is the president of the United States. And that the highest level of scrutiny should be applied to something like that when somebody becomes president.”

Feingold has suggested that Clinton should divest herself of any ties to the controversial Clinton Foundation, and that he has said he is “troubled” by how Clinton used private email servers and addresses to circumvent State Department systems.

But despite being “troubled” by her inability to tell the truth about her email use, and despite his skepticism of the Clinton Foundation, Feingold still believes Hillary Clinton is “trustworthy.”

And Feingold’s not alone in his sentiments. Wisely, most Democrats don’t go as far Feingold, but they also don’t admit that Clinton’s behavior has been less than honest, candid or straightforward.

Democratic Congresswoman Ann Kirkpatrick of Arizona claimed she didn’t hear the question, and then proceeded to not answer the question, when she was asked on CNN in early August if she thought Clinton was “trustworthy.” In mid-August, Gov. Maggie Hassan (D-NH) was asked the same question by CNN, and after initially dodging, ended up saying, “I think that she has demonstrated a commitment always to something beyond herself, bigger than herself.”

An NBC poll found that only 12% of Democratic voters think Clinton is trustworthy. That’s even worse than Donald Trump, who is thought to be trustworthy by only 19% of Republicans.

With Donald Trump’s poll numbers riding so low and, likely, taking some Republicans down with him, it is unclear if Democrats like Feingold will face any negative consequences for their near lock-step support for Clinton despite the universal perception that she is a pathological liar who cannot tell the truth if it draws into question some element or aspect of her past or present judgment.

DR Radio

Dead Reckoning Radio: Brexit, SCOTUS, and Benghazi

  • Will Britain fall apart after Brexit?
  • What does the SCOTUS decision on Whole Women’s Health mean for pro-lifers?
  • Is the final Benghazi report important?

We talk about this and more in the latest DR Radio episode. Join hosts Jay, Brian, and Hadley for fun and deep conversations. For the full show notes or to subscribe to the podcast feed, visit our website.

The Benghazi Hearing Should Not Be, But Is, A Waste of Time

There are still, despite a media effort to deny it, a lot we do not know about Libya and Benghazi. Only now do we have Ambassador Stephens’ emails. Only recently did we learn that Hillary Clinton was being privately advised by people with financial interests in the Libyan outcome.

For example, it is clear from Hillary Clinton’s emails that the Obama Administration did not want regime change in Libya initially. But Hillary Clinton came under pressure from outsides interests to agitate for regime change and then did so. How exactly did that outside influence shift the White House strategy? That is a relevant question.

So too are the relevant questions about security in Benghazi. Other committees claimed to have reviewed the information, but they did so without any emails from Ambassador Stephens.

Those questions should be answered and the hearings should not be a waste of time, but they are.

The hearings are a waste of time because everything about it is politicized and nothing is going to happen. There will be no scalp collection. In fact, it is clear from today’s hearing that Trey Gowdy and Peter Roskam seem to be the only two people on the committee of either party who are capable of asking exacting, precise questions. Most of the rest of the committee just wants to grandstand for the folks back home as either prosecutors of or defenders of Hillary Clinton.

Mrs. Clinton too is far too bright to be trapped in this or any questions. There have been some, by Trey Gowdy typically, that have clearly caused Mrs. Clinton to be flustered, but the long term effects of that will be to make her a martyr to her own side. But the fact is, Democratic voters are not going to reject Mrs. Clinton even if she were to admit that she had flown to Benghazi and joined Al Qaeda in the attack.

The media, of course, has already defined this whole thing as a spectacle and witch hunt by the GOP to rough up Hillary Clinton. Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy’s comments played into that and discredited this episode before it began in the minds of the press.

So we’ll go through today’s hearing and the GOP will think there were sterling moments of gotcha brilliance. The Democrats will think there were sterling moments of fundraising opportunity for Hillary Clinton. The press will ignore it all. And the 70% of Americans not on twitter or following the hearings today will go on with their lives.

It was all a political spectacle. God bless Trey Gowdy for trying to learn the facts and understand what happened. But the rest of it was just a carnival road show of back bench congresscritters playing to the cameras and Hillary Clinton working hard to play persecuted victim.

13 Hours With Kris Paronto

I spoke with Kris Paronto the other day. He co-wrote the book Thirteen Hours about his time on the ground as a CIA security contractor in Benghazi. His unit got the stand down order. He continues to tell the story about what happened and why it happened.

I asked him about the night of the attack, his reaction to the congressional report dismissive of what happened, and his views on Hillary Clinton.