Cons, how is this smoking gun email different than the talking point revisions that were released almost a year ago?

What happened to ABC? They were one of the many Media's that are Pro Obama? What has changed?

In Con world if right-wing talking heads say it's a smoking gun it's a smoking gun.

The difference is the specifics as to what we are actually allowed to see. This email, when placed in the time line, put into the puzzles, shows who was involved, who knew what was being pushed, covered up compared to who knew the truth at the time.

If this email wasn't that important, then jay wouldn't have tried to dismiss it the other day, wouldn't have stated that it didn't even pertain to Benghazi.

This one email proves that not only the white house inner circle played a role in the covering up of the facts, that Obama's reelection campaign also did and they used federal institutions, to manipulate data that was used in the reelection bid. It also showed that while standing over the caskets of four dead Americans, the president and Hilary looked into the grieving families eyes, and lied to them.

That is what I keep telling people.

I posted questions about this a year ago, and literally NOBODY would answer the question.

So it takes a year for the reality to finally dawn on people.

http://nomorecocktails.com/post/2013/05/06/Bob-Sch...

Bob Scheiffer: Victoria Nuland was involved with the altered Benghazi talking points

5/6/2013

'On Face the Nation last night, Bob Scheiffer read from the Weekly Standard article which suggests that Victoria Nuland State Dept spokesman was worried that the talking points would be used to criticize State so that would suggest that Nuland was involved with altered talking. points. That is when the different talking points came out. CIA, the Deputy Chief of Mission Greg Hicks and even Chris Stevens all knew it was a terrorist attack.'

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nathan-roush/2013/05/...

State Dept. Official Who Altered Benghazi Talking Points Promoted; Only Fox Covered

May 24, 2013

'News broke late Thursday afternoon that President Obama had made his selection for the appointee to the position of Assistant Secretary of State to Europe and Eurasia, Victoria Nuland.

'it appears that the President is employing a modern version of the Jacksonian spoils system by rewarding Nuland for helping to cover a disastrous lapse in his administration’s security just weeks before a close election.'

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jul/11/cl...

Benghazi talking points not shared with Clinton, Nuland says

July 11, 2013

'An initial version of the talking points had made references to al Qaeda and to “at least five other attacks” on foreign interests that had occurred in Benghazi prior to attacks that killed U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans. But, following Mrs. Nuland’s input, those references were removed from a final version the White House gave to former U.N. Ambassador Susan E. Rice for dissemination on several news talk shows.

'Mrs. Rice, who since has been named Mr. Obama’s national security adviser, made no mention of al Qaeda or terrorists on the talk shows, and instead said the Benghazi attacks had grown out of a spontaneous protest against an anti-Islam video.'

http://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2014/04/...

Former CIA official insists politics played no role in changes to Benghazi talking points

April 2, 2014

'He said the CIA knew that some of the individuals involved in the attack were al-Qaida from classified sources, information that couldn't be included unless it was declassified. The talking points were provided to members of the committee for dissemination to the American people.

'Morell said he removed references to the warnings based on previous CIA analysis. Otherwise, he said, the talking points would have been a "way for CIA to pound its chest and say 'we warned,' laying all the blame on the State Department."'

Victoria Nuland said she altered the Benghazi talking points on her own initiative, without being instructed to do so, and without informing her superiors that the truth was being concealed from the public just weeks before a crucial election. Then after the election, she was rewarded with a promotion for skillfully shielding the State Department and the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton from taking the blame for ignoring prior warnings of the attack, and for concealing the fact that several of the attackers were known al Qaeda members, all the while maintaining plausible deniability for her superiors.

Your problem is, you refuse to open your mind to reality.. I mean, you wouldn't intentionally propagate the lies of the Obama, would you... Oh wait... You are liberal scum...of course you do.

Obviously not much because whatever they are babbling about is not gaining traction in the media that is not insane..

this one EXPLICITLY ties the White House to the lies.

This is what the Obama administration has been trying to prevent -- us from finding out exactly who ordered the lies.

now we KNOW. The Administration ordered the lies.

Did any of them get fired for lying to the public? NO. Of course not. Lying is what Obama does best.

They admitted to the lie about blaming it on some stupid video. What a joke, trying to cover for your Muslim Brothers.

It identifies the person who was actually doing things at the White House and shows how some people were not completely honest when they went before congress. It is sad that the liberals are not concerned that more emphasis was placed on protecting a president's election than telling the truth to the American people about what happened.