If There Was No Wrongdoing At Benghazi, Why Is The Administration Intimidating Journalists?

The people who are garrulous and wear their heart on their sleeve and tell you everything, that’s one kind of person, but the fellow who’s hiding behind a tree and hoping you don’t see him is the fellow that you’d better find out why.” – Dorothea Lange

With the Benghazi investigation gearing up under the direction of Trey Gowdy, I think it’s important to not only look at the evidence, but at those who are trying to suppress any, and all investigation by third parties, as their suppression is as much an indicator of guilt as any damning evidence.

According to Greta Van Susteren, shortly after the Benghazi situation broke, peculiar events began to take place that, under any other circumstances, would be labeled as highly suspicious, and worthy of further investigation.

The Obama administration’s behavior post-Benghazi has been weird, like they’re hiding something. First, that silly story about that video…remember the days right after the attack the State Department had a conference call to brief all the media and excluded Fox News? When confronted, the State Department apologized and said it was an oversight. Really? An oversight? Well it happened again, a short time later. This time the CIA giving a media briefing, and guess who was specifically excluded? You got it. Fox News. Why? Well, I think Fox News is being punished for aggressively asking questions, and doing our jobs…a few weeks later, when reporter Jennifer Griffin said she was told that there was a stand down order at Benghazi, I got a weird call from the Obama administration trying to pressure me to get Jennifer to back down on her report. I thought the call from the Obama administration was dirty…As recently as April, after the administration said it turned over all the information, an email surfaces that had been withheld in the face of repeated requests. Are you suspicious? I don’t know about you, but I wasn’t born yesterday.”

First, let’s get out of the way the probable accusations regarding the truthfulness of Greta Van Susteren’s claim regarding the phone call from the Obama administration. Greta Van Susteren is a very highly respected journalist, who has never been at the wrong end of any salacious accusations. Furthermore, the fact that the rest of what Van Susteren said is verifiable, and speaks to a very peculiar, and deliberate exclusion of Fox News, the claim about the phone call is very probable, and within reason.

If indeed the claim is true, one must wonder why the administration would tell a journalist to stand down. Is there a reason outside of wrongdoing, or negligence that would require intimidation? Why was Fox excluded not once, but twice? Why were emails withheld after we were told that the administration was an open book? Why was CBS’s Sharyl Attkisson let go shortly after her aggressive reporting on Benghazi? Why was her computer hacked by a sophisticated third party—whichh CBS has since confirmed? It seems that when journalists pursue the Obama administration with any sort of aggression, they are told to stand down, or they are shut out completely, as a form of punishment, or as a warning.

If there was no wrongdoing on the part of president Obama, or then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, why would the administration seek to exclude, and intimidate those investigating the story? Why would they withhold evidence? There is no other reason outside of a deliberate coverup. If that is the case, what is worthy of covering up but wrongdoing, or incompetence? Evidence is emerging that Hillary’s, and Obama’s behavior was incompetent, or negligent, and as more of this evidence emerges, it becomes clearer that these intimidation tactics were designed to protect the administration. The Fox special 13 Hours in Benghazi, and the book The People Versus Barack Obama by Ben Shapiro present damning evidence against the Obama administration.

Setting aside all evidence, however, the questions remain: Why exclude Fox? Why intimidate a journalist? Why exclude a pivotal email, and then lie about its exclusion? In the absence of evidence, behavior is often an indicator of guilt. And this type of behavior is indicative of the fact that those who are investigating are on the right track, that they are on to something big. The behavior of this administration has been nothing short of odd, and incriminating.

To those who believe that Benghazi is just a vast Right-wing conspiracy, I would ask: Why this behavior? Why the exclusion? Why the lies? Why the intimidation? If no wrongdoing occurred, then the administration should be open, and willing to cooperate fully with any investigation, and they should be unafraid of journalists pursuing the truth.