There are always new "dark conspiracies" in a patented Clinton scandal

There are always new "dark conspiracies" in a patented Clinton scandal

by digby

To all those earnest liberals who believed that the House Intelligence Committee on Benghazi finding no conspiracy put the issue to bed, you really need to think again:

“Benghazi was the definition of an intelligence failure,” Paul begins, dismissing the entire committee report as unserious.

“It was, in fact, one of the worst intelligence failures in our history, a strategic blunder that resulted in the murder of a U.S. ambassador and three other Americans… The ultimate blame lies with the Obama administration and more directly with Hillary Clinton who oversaw this tragedy during her tenure as secretary of state.”

Paul then asks of the “persistent allegations hinting at dark conspiracies” noted by the Associated Press, “None of these accusations contain even a modicum of truth?”

Later, Paul quotes Clinton’s notorious line, “What difference, at this point, does it make?” referring to what served as the catalyst for the attacks, an anti-Muslim video or a push by radical Islamists. “It makes huge difference, Mrs. Clinton,” Paul writes. “This new Benghazi ‘intelligence’ report is little more than a C.Y.A. attempt designed to protect incompetent politicians and government agents at the expense of justice for the victims of September 11, 2012… And yes, Hillary, it still matters.”

Asked on what intelligence Paul has based his conclusion that the Republican-led committee’s findings were incorrect, his senior aide, Doug Stafford, deflected by saying, “Senator Paul doesn’t believe the questions have all been answered, nor does he believe those responsible for this failure have been held accountable, especially Secretary Clinton.”

That's from Rand Paul's Breitbart exclusive op-ed today insisting that "the truth" has not been found.

I was surprised by some loiberals' smug reaction to the House report. Most of them are old enough to have lived through the Clinton Scandals of the 1990s and should know better. Benghazi is a Clinton scandal and they are not subject to the normal rules of fact and reason. There are "dark conspiracies" that must be rooted out and if they are dismissed by investigators it's only because the conspiracies are much darker than they thought and the investigator was simply incompetent to find out what they were.

Case in point:

Attorney General Janet Reno appointed [Republican Robert] Fiske as the "special prosecutor" to investigate the Whitewater controversy and the death of White House Counsel Vincent Foster in January 1994. Fiske conducted investigations, and released an interim report on June 30 that in summary concluded that President Bill Clinton and White House officials had not interfered with the Resolution Trust Corporation, which was investigating the failed Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan, a partner of the Whitewater Development Corporation. Fiske's report also concluded that Vince Foster committed suicide.

On the same day that Fiske released this report, President Clinton signed the Independent Counsel Reauthorization Act of 1994, effectively abolishing the position of Special Prosecutor and replacing it with the position of Independent Counsel. Under the new law, the Special Division had sole authority to select Independent Counsels. Janet Reno formally requested that Robert Fiske be chosen, and allowed to continue his investigation. On August 5, the Special Division, headed by Judge David Sentelle of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, decided to replace Fiske with former D.C. Circuit judge Kenneth Starr.

Benghazi was chosen a long time ago to be the first Clinton scandal for her run 2016.  The facts are irrelevant. The idea here is to create two parallel narratives. The first is that Hillary is an incompetent woman who can't possibly run the country. The other is to put people on notice that if the is elected the patented "Clinton Scandals" are back. The first is for the benefit of the conservative. The other is directed as a warning shot to Democrats who might have a vague recollection of Clinton scandal fatigue. (There's a third narrative about the Clintons being financially corrupt a la Whitewater as well, but Benghazi runs on a separate track.)

This is just the beginning. I don't know why the right loves this theme so much but they clearly do. They failed to destroy them the first time with this stuff but who knows? Maybe they figure the second time's the charm.

.