Hillary Clinton

Hillary's Secret War

As secretary of state, Clinton obtained permission from President Obama and Congress to arm rebels in Syria and Libya in an effort to overthrow the governments of those countries.



In the course of my work at Fox News, I am often asked by colleagues to review and explain documents and statutes. Recently, in conjunction with my colleagues Catherine Herridge, our chief intelligence correspondent, and Pamela Browne, our senior executive producer, I read the transcripts of an interview Browne did with a man named Marc Turi, and Herridge asked me to review emails to and from State Department and congressional officials during the years when Hillary Clinton was the secretary of state.

What I saw has persuaded me beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty that Clinton provided material assistance to terrorists and lied to Congress in a venue where the law required her to be truthful. Here is the backstory.

Turi is a lawfully licensed American arms dealer. In 2011, he applied to the Departments of State and Treasury for approvals to sell arms to the government of Qatar. Qatar is a small Middle Eastern country whose government is so entwined with the U.S. government that it almost always will do what American government officials ask of it.

In its efforts to keep arms from countries and groups that might harm Americans and American interests, Congress has authorized the Departments of State and Treasury to be arms gatekeepers. They can declare a country or group to be a terrorist organization, in which case selling or facilitating the sale of arms to them is a felony. They also can license dealers to sell.

Turi sold hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of arms to the government of Qatar, which then, at the request of American government officials, were sold, bartered, or given to rebel groups in Libya and Syria. Some of the groups that received the arms were on the U.S. terror list. Thus, the same State and Treasury Departments that licensed the sales also prohibited them.

How could that be?

That's where Clinton's secret State Department and her secret war come in. Because Clinton used her husband's computer server for all of her email traffic while she was the secretary of state, a violation of three federal laws, few in the State Department outside her inner circle knew what she was up to.

Now we know.

She obtained permission from President Obama and consent from congressional leaders in both houses of Congress and in both parties to arm rebels in Syria and Libya in an effort to overthrow the governments of those countries.

Many of the rebels Clinton armed, using the weapons lawfully sold to Qatar by Turi and others, were terrorist groups who are our sworn enemies. There was no congressional declaration of war, no congressional vote, no congressional knowledge beyond fewer than a dozen members, and no federal statute that authorized this.

When Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) asked Clinton at a public hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee on Jan. 23, 2013, whether she knew about American arms shipped to the Middle East, to Turkey or to any other country, she denied any knowledge. It is unclear whether she was under oath at the time, but that is legally irrelevant. The obligation to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth to Congress pertains to all witnesses who testify before congressional committees, whether an oath has been administered or not. (Just ask Roger Clemens, who was twice prosecuted for misleading Congress about the contents of his urine while not under oath. He was acquitted.)

Here is her relevant testimony:

Paul: My question is … is the U.S. involved with any procuring of weapons, transfer of weapons … buying, selling … anyhow transferring weapons to Turkey … out of Libya?

Clinton: To Turkey? … I will have to take that question for the record. Nobody's ever raised that with me. I, I…

Paul: It's been in news reports that ships have been leaving from Libya and that they may have weapons … and what I'd like to know is … the (Benghazi) annex that was close by… Were they involved with procuring, buying, selling, obtaining weapons … and were any of these weapons transferred to other countries … any countries, Turkey included?

Clinton: Senator, you will have to direct that question to the agency that ran the (Benghazi) annex. And I will see what information is available and … ahhhh…

Paul: You are saying you don't know…

Clinton: I do not know. I don't have any information on that.

At the time that Clinton denied knowledge of the arms shipments, she and her State Department political designee Andrew Shapiro had authorized thousands of shipments of billions of dollars' worth of arms to U.S. enemies to fight her secret war. Among the casualties of her war were U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens and three colleagues, who were assassinated at the American consulate in Benghazi, Libya, by rebels Clinton armed with American military hardware in violation of American law.

This secret war and the criminal behavior that animated it was the product of conspirators in the White House, the State Department, the Treasury Department, the Justice Department, the CIA, and a tight-knit group of members of Congress. Their conspiracy has now unraveled. Where is the outrage among the balance of Congress?

Hillary Clinton lied to Congress, gave arms to terrorists, and destroyed her emails. How much longer can she hide the truth? How much longer can her lawlessness go unchallenged and unprosecuted? Does she really think the American voters will overlook her criminal behavior and put her in the White House where she can pardon herself?


NEXT: Watch Matt Welch Defend Dukes of Hazzard at 3 a.m. on Red Eye w/ Tom Shillue

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Hillary could have personally escorted the September 11 hijackers to the cockpit of the airplanes, but as long as she supports a women’s right to choose, my wife will vote for her.

    1. We haven’t discussed it yet, but I am pretty sure my lefty gf will vote for HC no matter what, as well. From what I have observed/heard, her whole family are basically shills for the DNC, and seem to me to be quintessential democratic voters. (I have dropped hints and sometimes stated outright my support for principles like free speech absolutism, property right absolutism, self-defense right absolutism, and even the fabled NAP, and they think I am a Republican bc of it…)

      1. I would avoid discussion of politics with them if I were you, unless you and they are both chill about it (which “shills for the DNC” probably wouldn’t be). Keep in mind people are often very touchy about their political opinions.

        1. I definitely do not discuss anything political with her family. And the couple times I’ve dabbled into political convo with my gf, she has gotten emotional. So I’ll probably not discuss anything Clinton related outright. But I doubt if I can totally avoid dropping hints in the form of jokes or rhetorical questions about what I think of HC.

          1. But I doubt if I can totally avoid dropping hints in the form of jokes or rhetorical questions about what I think of HC.

            I don’t see how that can lead to anything good. You might want to bite your tongue.

      2. My wife used to be a strong HRC supporter, but the lack of transparency of HRC while SOS has turned her against Hillary. [My wife is a journalist and doesn’t like cover-ups.] Now if I can just convince her to understand how the minimum wage is bad…

      3. Ok. I don’t understand this.

        1. These, I assume are “otherwise” close, intimate, relationships of trust and mutual attraction? I’m frustrated enough just trying to talk to my libby friends, but I then don’t have to find them attractive enough to sleep with.

          1. I am a Ron Paul man, myself. I have problems with minimum wage not keeping up with the outrageous wages given to CEO-s and other corporate types. How do we reverse it? I don’ know myself.

            But as a surgeon, I was told that $70,000 a year were great wages in 1998! At the same time the CEO-s of insurance companies were getting multimillion dollar contracts! It has gotten more obscene since then. But, I broke my back and am, now, disabled. So they don’t affect my income, any more. The medical board will never get that money back, they claimed to have spent investigating me, as well. But, they won’t be going broke, soon!

    2. And she should. Who cares about some overseas whodunnit, when we have home grown politicians wanting to impose their religious views on women and gays here?

  2. I have less of a problem with Hillary lying and covering up her actions than I do with the US government selling weapons to anybody period.

    1. So selling weapons (not giving them away) is bad?

      Arming terrorist groups, getting our Ambassador killed, blocking the consulate rescue, making up a bullshit story about a video to shift blame, and breaking the law to hide her communications, and generally lying every time she exhales … not so bad?

      1. To clarify: the federal government shouldn’t be supplying weapons to anyone that isn’t an employee of the federal government.

        1. But I like the CMP.

        2. Maybe, but like printing money it can’t back up, this seems to be something that governments just do.

          Government is kind of like venereal disease; at some point of human interaction, it’s probably inevitable. That doesn’t make it good.

        3. Exactly. If you aren’t in the army or law enforcement, you shouldn’t need weapons.

  3. She obtained permission from President Obama and consent from congressional leaders in both houses of Congress and in both parties to arm rebels in Syria and Libya…

    Well, obviously, at this point this legalizes whatever material aid she provided terrorists. Once either the president or congressional oversight gives you permission to do something, any law to the contrary is nullified. And she got permission from both? Extra legit.

    Now, if only residents of Chicago or New York City could get such permission from Congress and/or the White House, maybe they’d be able to arm themselves.

  4. Secretly selling weapons to a sworn enemy? Republicans would never do that!

    1. Then that makes what she did ok ?

      1. The trouble with trying to bring a politician down with scandal is that the other team has done the same or worse somewhere down the line. And it becomes hypocritical sanctimony to try to ruin someone for something you’ve previously defended.

        If she’s done wrong, they should by all means investigate and, if necessary, prosecute. But hyping it up in the press isn’t going to do anything but remind everyone about every other politicians closet skeletons.

        1. “But hyping it up in the press isn’t going to do anything but remind everyone about every other politicians closet skeletons.”

          Well, to you apparently. I want all wrongful acts revealed and punished.

          1. As do I, but that’s not how Beltway politics works. Maybe every now and then a Young Firebrand ™ comes along and tries to shake things up, but the system is one where everyone keeps everyone else’s secrets. In a few weeks this is as likely to be as buried as that Clinton Foundation business.

            1. “In a few weeks this is as likely to be as buried as that Clinton Foundation business.

              And hyping it up in the press is the only weapon we have against that.

          2. Oh, HELL no. The idea of a society where every single transgression is caught? Yuck!

            We are, in fact, seeing a preview of this will speeding and stop light cameras. Even setting aside the mistakes that get made, they result is the enforcement of laws so witlessly that they laws become a problem bigger than the lawbreakers. Personally, I expected the result to be a broad lifting of speed limits, as people said “well, if you are going to MEAN it, then this 20 MPH nonsense on our major commuter route has got to go”. There may be some of that happening, but more often the citizenry is simply saying “Get these cameras the hell out of our town, our county, our state”, and officials who try to do an end run around public opinion are finding themselves unemployed.

            1. Lax enforcement is better than having good laws in the first place. SMH.

              1. No, but we don’t HAVE good laws in place. We have laws we are prepared to tolerate given the level of enforcement that was practical when they were written.

                1. No, but we don’t HAVE good laws in place. We have laws we are prepared to tolerate given the level of enforcement that was practical when they were written.

                  Phrased somewhat differently: lots of laws were passed with the approval of people who never thought those laws would be enforced against themselves.

                  The hypocrisy of the law ought to be laid bare for all to see, not hidden in the shadows to ensnare people capriciously.

        2. “remind everyone about every other politicians closet skeletons”

          Like driving infractions?

          1. Indeed.

            I’m no more a Hillary fan than anyone here but this is how DC operates. It’s all a little game in a pocket dimension cut off from reality. Hell, if worse come to worse and anyone pressed this, the Dems can take some Repubs aside and say: “Remember how we decided not to investigate those little things Booooooooooooooooosh! did…?”, call in those chits and everything’s okay for another 8 years.

  5. It is truly a sad state of affairs for our coutry that this woman can be so openly corrupt and yet untouchable.

    Are all the rest also so corrupt that they are afraid to throw the first stone ?

    Have any of you refreshed yourselves on the Abscam affair ?

    I recently read a book about the undecover informant during the investigation. It is sickening how openly corrupt so many of them were and I have no reason to believe the talent pool has improved over the years. I was very surprised how cheaply they sold the power of the offices as well.

    I have long held the position that Meico is a much more democratic country than the US. In Mexico anyone with a few dollars can bribe a government offical. Have a problem with a typo on a car title ? No problem. Slip the bureaucrat a few pesos, or better yet a couple of American dollars and the problem disappears. Try that in the US and you will probably go to jail unless you are a member of a protected class.

    In the US you can only bribe elected officals and they charge more. Only the well off can afford bribery in the US.

    1. In some countries, nothing gets done unless you give a little “baksheesh” to an official.
      Americans are very anal about such things but, since the impulse is there on both ends of a bribery transaction, our “analness” makes it a much bigger deal and, as you say, only for big-time stuff.
      Which system is better?

  6. just in case anyone thought Chris Stevens was your garden variety stuffed-shirt, big-contributor-rewarded ambassador. Of course, no aid was offered during the Benghazi attack; the operation was what it was and there was risk involved.

  7. “Hillary’s Secret War”? I guess you mean, “America’s ‘Secret War’ That Wasn’t A Secret”, since everyone knew about it.

  8. You know who else had a war in Libya?

  9. You know who else had a war in Libya?

  10. As secretary of state, Clinton obtained permission from President Obama and Congress to arm rebels in Syria and Libya in an effort to overthrow the governments of those countries.

    Yep. Furthermore, Benghazi was no “embassy”; it was an arms depot.

    And every bureaucrat in the government who knows this information is interrogated by polygraph once a month or so in order to intimidate them and keep from leaking this out.

  11. Gee, I’m sure glad that Hillary believes that we should keep guns away from dangerous people.

    1. Right, she wants to keep guns away from people who are dangerous…to her career, i.e. teathuglicans, while giving them to others who only want to do good things…to her career
      At least you can’t say that she doesn’t stay true to her beliefs.

  12. We saw lying under oath reduced to a breach of etiquette a generation ago. That two Obama cabinet appointees (probably more, I lose count) lied in Congressional hearings without even a hint of retribution, much less prison time, is a sign of a castrated Congress and hints at where true authority lies, namely the cult of the executive.

    We’ll muddle along, but the federal government is a banana republic, and it will be treated as one by entrepreneurs and the rare informed citizen.

    1. Oh, bullshit. People keep talking about Congressional Investigations as if the majority of them were EVER as pointed as Watergate. Watergate was a one-off; the Democrats hated Nixon, had a bunch of political capitol, and saw an opportunity to screw him sideways (for doing what the last two – DEMOCRAT – administrations had done as a matter of routine). This business of nothing really touching the top players until suddenly something stupid seems to bring them crashing down, usually after leaving office, is much more normal.

      1. That incoherent rant is not responsive to what I posted, as you’d find that we’re substantially in agreement if you’d bother to read.

        Which is par for the course with you. Read bad, rant good.

        1. I really took it that you thought the situation was NEW. It isn’t. It hasn’t been new since Og won the chieftainship by bribing the Elders with Corn Beer. This is politics. It’s when politics gets streamlined and efficient that you REALLY need to watch out, That’s when the mass graves get dug.

  13. On a more upbeat note, let’s remember that this is the person Democrats want to run for president: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgcd1ghag5Y

    Rumor has it Biden pulled H— aside after that to give her a talking to.

  14. Does she really think the American voters will overlook her criminal behavior and put her in the White House where she can pardon herself?

    Yes. Most voters vote on bumper sticker slogans, campaign commercials, and, above all, their ‘feelz’ with regard to any identity politics revolving around a given candidate.

    1. What does anyone feelz when they hear Hillary speak? Obama is charming. Clinton was uber-charming. Bush was more charming than Gore.

      If she receives the nomination, Hillary will be the single worst candidate either major party has run since the dawn of the television era and possibly the radio era. It’s difficult to capture just how incompetent a campaigner she is and how much she will demoralize voters. Very few young people or minorities are going to lose credibility with their social circles for failing to turn out for Hillary.

    2. I think we’ve gotten to the stage where someone like Hillary won’t even feel the need to pardon herself. Our political system has gotten that rotten.

  15. Of course the Sate Department was giving, selling, raffling weapons to people it was stupid to arm. It’s practically a baseline function, on a level of “It would be written into the Constitution, but everybody agreed it was obvious”. Every State Department cast of every administration, ever, has probably done this. The only difference being, some we know about, and some nobody gives a goddamn.

    Of course Shillary did it badly, when it came to her turn. The woman has no clear competence at anything except malfeasance. She isn’t even particularly good at lying, which is odd when you consider who she lives with; you’d think some level of skill would transfer. No politician who makes it to Washington is likely to be very good at anything except running for office; that is the skill that gets them there, and it takes most of their time and energy. Shrillary isn’t even particularly good at that, since she got where she is by riding on her husband’s coat tails (or dangling from his groin hairs).

    Democracy ensures that competent leaders are thin on the ground. That is one of its great MERITS. Competent leaders are likely to want to lead, and governments with direction and momentum are dangerous.

    Yes, I woke up grumpy. Why do you ask?

  16. This has to receive attention if not only for the opportunity for people to see more of the absolute shit that usually happens when you try to meddle in the Middle East and support rebel groups.

    1. Of, hell, we’ve been screwing around in the middle east since “The shores of Tripoli”. The problem is we have, on what evidence I can’t imagine, decided that straightforward colonialism or gunboat diplomacy aren’t fashionable. So we dick around at one remove, or send in the military with rules of engagement that would make a troop of cub scouts laugh.

      We should just flat out admit that we don’t give a flying fuck about the “rights’ of a bunch of people who, on the evidence, want to live in the 13th Century. If we were to go all colonial on them, they would feel just as oppressed as they do now, and their electricity and running water would friggin’ work. It isn’t as if we were doing them a favor by refraining.

      1. cntd.

        We’ve tried the Post Colonial, everybody work through proxies nonsense. It doesn’t work and it requires a “We’re just motivated by charitable impulses and sweetness and light” pose that isn’t particularly believable, even when it’s true. Contrary to the anti-war crowds claims, the death toll of our serviceman and women in the sandbox isn’t that much higher than it would be if they were at home on base, and with us of with our us the locals seem likely to keep killing each-other. So, why not actually go get what we WANT? Get the oil. Shift the “Palestinians” into pre-fab housing in Jordan, syria, and Egypt (who should have taken them in, having gotten them into that mess in the first place) at gunpoint, if necessary. They’re miserable where they are; if they’re miserable where they get sent, at least they won’t be shooting at people we like anymore.

        This Maiden Aunt, we’re so SHOCKED nonsense is piffle.

        1. C. S. P. Schofield, I think you are right on point but if we cast off the illusions of how we, i.e., the American government (and other 1st world nations) operates, then we lose some shadows to hide in that we otherwise would be able to use for subterfuge against our enemies. And the women and the weak would bemoan the harsh realities of the world that they can ignore when we place that ugliness behind a veil of lies and politics. Even if someone is getting raped and murdered behind that veil, those people will still be able to convince themselves the screaming is just an owl dying in the forest, probably from old age. A large portion of the population wants their head in the sand, they feel comfortable like that… Also the dim and naive probably do get ‘SHOCKED’ by things most of us take as a given.

          1. You’d think that the combination of the smell and the stretching sensation would tell them that it isn’t the sand they’ve jammed their heads into?.

  17. Need more proof than that. Not that I don;t believe it, just we have had enough charges without verification.

  18. It seems that every time our government tries to intervene in the affairs of another country, the situation goes sideways and then turns against us. For years it seemed as if the Democrats were the only party to recognize this (Iran, Nicaragua, Cuba, etc.). Now a Democratic administration is intervening in multiple ME countries simultaneously and has enabled one of the foulest organizations in human history (ISIS), but we hear nothing from the Democrats about getting our just rewards.

    Surely they’re not disingenuous.

    1. Two points

      1) It’s hardly just OUR government. I can’t think of another that really manages it any better.

      2) The Democrats aren’t the party that recognizes that it seldom goes well, they are the party that is willing to pretend that they are opposed to it. They do it just as much as the Republicans if not more. The Democrats are responsible for our involvement in both World Wars and Korea. They have at least a half share in the mess that was the Vietnam War. And jug-ears in the White House has meddled enough, and to so little purpose, that they really need to lay of George W.. The principal difference between Democrats and Republicans on this issue is that the Republicans are just a trifle better at it.

      1. I agree with you. I’m just a little pissed at the hypocrisy of the Democrats and, especially, the MSM for not recognizing that this scandal is as big as Iran-Contra, and many others. Indeed, the Leftist media complains that we deserve the mess that is Iran/USA relations because we tried to overthrow the Shah (even though the British deserve more credit). But they fail to acknowledge Clinton’s role in Libya and Syria. Clinton/Obama has made the ME even worse than Rice/Bush did.

        1. Put bluntly, Rice/Bush seem to have had some idea what the F*ck they were doing. Not compete mastery by a long shot; I’m not sure ANYBODY knows everything they need to know about the Middle East. But they had some kind of goals, and a fair idea of the major pitfalls. I’m not at all sure what motivates Obama, unless it’s “I’m bored, and it’s raining so Golf’s out of the question. What’s for humor?”

          1. Well, I think part of Obama’s problem is the people he brought on to support him. More than that, I wonder if his narcissism prevents him from considering good advice when he gets it. He is the Lightbringer, after all.

    2. Surely they’re not disingenuous.

      They are. And don’t call me Shirley.

  19. So, ISIS is the offspring of the Hildebeast. Figures.

    Why is the bitch not in prison? Why haven’t we given her a job making mulch?

    1. Gods, can you just imagine what would grow in a garden mulched with that? Somehow the horror film THE RUINS springs to mind?..

  20. As of now (7:41 Central Time), I haven’t see a thing about this on CBS or CNN or the local channels. Maybe the MSM are trying to vet Judge Napolitano’s story. Or maybe they threw it in the woodchipper…

  21. Hillary Clinton supports the war on women who smoke weed.

    She’s very sexist.

  22. Please don’t elect people who are world class obfuscators of the truth.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.