What Difference it Makes…

| January 25, 2013

“What difference does it make?” Someone on that Senate panel should have responded, Madam Secretary, what a foolish question for a lawyer to ask.” And never forget that Hillary Clinton is a lawyer because you can bet the farm she never has. And as such she knows full well that lawyers make their careers and fortunes on the legal minutiae of cause and effect. Were Hillary acting as legal counsel for a family of one of those deceased navy SEAL’s who died in Benghazi, in a wrongful death suit, she certainly wouldn’t accept a defense argument of, “What difference does it make?” It is difficult to believe that as a lawyer she would have asked that question had she not been coached and prepped to do so for dramatic political effect.

Her question is also an indefensible and inadequate political response. As a caller to the Rush Limbaugh show gave as examples: what if Nixon had responded to the Watergate charges, “What difference does it make? So a bunch of guys out walking around at night decided to break into Democrat headquarters? So what?” Or, even better, “What if George Bush had responded to the issue of no found WMD’s in Iraq with the same dismissive response?” Do you think the media would have swallowed whole such an indifferent comeback as they’ve done with Hillary?

The difference it makes Hillary is that there most likely exists tort culpability for wrongful death within the government, whether it’s in your state department or the White House, for those four deaths in Benghazi. And you’d best believe there are going to be far more inquisitive and determined lawyers than you appear to be coming after you and your political cronies. Those fellow barristers aren’t likely to be so easily dismissed as that bunch of fawning senators with:
“What difference does it make?”

You can hide behind your sovereign immunity, Hillary, but there are personal injury lawyers out there who know how to pull legal flanking movements on that defense. Whether or not they prevail in court, they will keep your name and your political aspirations in the news between now and 2016.

And not in a good way…

Crossposted at American Thinker

Category: Barack Obama/Joe Biden, Foreign Policy, Terror War

Comments (38)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. MAJMike says:

    Hey, Madame Secretary! What difference does it make that your husband is a serial adulterer?

    In the case of the Benghazi incident, we need to know to ensure that this never happens again. Western civiliztion has done AAR’s ever since Athens kicked Persian ass at Marathon. When we fail to do this, we set ourselves up for future failure.

    But then again, the deaths of four Americans are but a “bump in the road.”

  2. Anonymous says:

    While her choice of words might have been less than artful, this quote is taken out of context of her entire response, which is here:

    SENATOR JOHNSON: Again, again we were mislead that there were supposedly protests and something then sprang out of that, an assault sprang out of that, and that was easily ascertained that that was not the fact, and the American people could’ve known that within days and they didn’t know that.

    HILLARY CLINTON: With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided they’d go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator.

    The ‘video’ line was asked several times before this, too, if I remember correctly, albeit in slightly different form. Again, her choice of words was poor, but her sentiment is actually correct – we need a FULL understanding of what occurred to ensure it doesn’t again, and in the course of that full understanding we’ll certainly discover things that went wrong, including why the IC apparently went with the ‘video’ reason, but to focus on that with laser-like precision is foolish and probably largely political posturing for constituents.

    Though, if you really want to be disgusted, watch the entire thing – the laser-like focus on asking Clinton the same question about the video by the Republicans was annoying, but the fawning by other Democrats over Hillary was utterly nauseating. I can’t stand any of these idiots.

  3. 2/17 Air Cav says:

    Yeah, well, assuming that the any such case is permissible under the Federal Torts Claims Act, the matter goes to the Federal agency involved. If the US wanted to keep Benghazi under wraps, that’s where it would end. Just concede negligence and pay up. Failing that, the case goes to court where, once again, the government gets to pay up and make the matter go away. No testimony, no exhibits, no nothing. It’ll be “Poof!” and gone.

  4. USMCE8Ret says:

    @3 – Some discussion has come up about the survivors that were hospitalized, and the fact they have yet to make any statements… which leads into your “testimony” comment. Presumably, they all signed non-disclosure statements which prevents them from divulging any sensitive information, as it pertains to their positions at the consulate and State Department, in the interest of keeping their jobs and to prevent any “ongoing investigation” from being compromised.

    Would you or others agree? (Perhaps this is not the forum to bring it up…)

  5. Nik says:

    What difference does it make that your husband is a serial adulterer?

    Seemingly none to her, just like the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi.

  6. WOTN says:

    I’ll agree with #2 (Anon) for completely different reasons. I just posted a paraphrase of the 2 1/2 hours of video, and you can easily find the parts you find most interesting: http://waronterrornews.typepad.com/home/2013/01/clinton-testimony-to-the-senate-foreign-relations-committee.html

    Little reported (or not at all) is the fact that Hillary states that she called it a terrorist attack on 9/12/2012, because it was, and because she wasn’t interested in talking points (unlike Rice, who she had not consulted or selected but had been involved in the selection process of talking points).

    Or that Hillary admits that the Admin knew that there were security problems in Libya and that the Libyans were incapable of securing the Embassy, but also that the US had not told the Libyans where the consulate was.

    Or that Hillary states that Al-Qaeda (in the Islamic West) is still a threat, and will remain so.

    As to #2’s complaint that R’s asked the same question repetively, she didn’t answer those questions.

    And McCain, you need to learn better questioning techniques. If you ask a series of questions, you afford the Secretary to avoid the most important questions.

  7. 2/17 Air Cav says:

    @4. what I meant, to be clear, regarding testimony is that a tort claim permitted under the Fed Tort Claims Act, if it went to trial, would include testimony and all sorts of other goodies that would be quite revealing. And the gov’t isn’t going to let that happen. One way to kill it is to settle the matter. Another is to fight the employees’ use of the Fed Torts Claim Act. If that fails, another approach, I guess, is to have everything ordered sealed for ‘national security purposes.’ A gov’t employee who signs a secrecy or confidentiality agreement does not waive other of his rights. Is this better or as thick as mud now?

  8. USMCE8Ret says:

    @7 – Got it. I was reading too much into it.

  9. Poetrooper says:

    Michael Ramirez, the superb political cartoonist at Investor’s Business Daily sums it up quite succinctly:


  10. Nik says:

    What’s that phrase? Something about failing to learn from history are doomed to repeat it? I would consider identifying and understanding the “why” of it is at least as important as the how.

  11. 2/17 Air Cav says:

    @9. Yep, that says it all. And I add that the cartoonist captured Wide Load’s butt nicely.

  12. DaveO says:

    Considering her outburst will be spun as Woman Defending Herself against rapist/sexist/racist Rethuglikkkan, which is what Madame Secretary specializes in.

    The ‘what does it matter’ will be dismissed, and soon we’ll folks who don’t sweat the context of ‘tear their throats out!’ suddenly extremely concerned with the context of Madame Secretary’s latest brutalization by Men, Inc.

  13. Twist says:

    @12, Go check out Yahoo News and you will see that they are already spinning it that way.

  14. WOTN says:

    I think some are dismissing many key points that came out in Hillary’s testimony, because they don’t like her, and don’t wish to acknowledge that she may have provided key, important details, honestly, even if she did not intend to do so.

    Take for example the fact that she admitted that she KNEW, and the Administration knew that the Libyan government did not have the capacity to provide security for Our Diplomats, and that she had discussed the deteriorating security situation in Libya at least as early as October, that she was relying on militias to assist in that security. (Marco Rubio questions)

    Take for example that she admits the Tunisians and Egyptians have demonstrated a lack of willingness to protect Our Embassies, and those two countries are by far more controlled by the Islamists put in power by the Admin.

  15. HMCS(FMF) says:

    Expect more of this “smart diplomacy” from “Lurch” Kerry

  16. bpete1969 says:

    “What difference does it make?”

    To her…none.
    To the media that refused to cover this with integrity when it happened…none.
    To the Dems who were aided in their effort to sweep the whole matter under the rug until after the election…none.
    To the entities that carried out the attack…none.
    To the rest of the world who couldn’t give a rat’s ass that we lost 4 Americans in a classic State Department screw up…none.

    To the families of the 4 that died and have been lied to by everyone from the President on down the line…it makes all the difference in the world.

    Unfortunately, we have in place a system that allows for individuals that have lied about the entire situation to this very day to continue to lie about it as they exit the door on their way to more lucrative lying elsewhere.

  17. Devtun says:

    Not to optimistic this will have any legs. Sure the MSM is whitewashing this, but I just don’t think most of the masses are paying any attention, even those that are probably don’t have any strong opinions. If this were 1988, Hillary would be finished, but U.S. is at a different place now. Majority Americans seem to want a Santa-in-Chief rather than a Commander-in-Chief. Don’t have the TV ratings, but it wouldn’t surprise me if most people flipped the channel when the hearing commenced…how does this pay the rent, buy groceries, or entertain me?

  18. FatCircles0311 says:

    Only incompetent politicians covered by a corrupted media would ever say such a thing when it involved dead Americans due to their negligence.

    It just goes to show how utterly corrupt our news media is. How uninvolved Americans are in anything that occurs outside of their facebook world, and how expectations have dropped so much that nobody will hold people accountable for anything any longer, unless the premise is that somebody isn’t being fair enough.

    It’s utterly amazing how only years ago we had a news media that knew before hand national intelligence regarding Iraq but today can’t even question nor find the survivors of Benghazi. How convenient that they knew exactly what was occurring in secret prisons and secret spy programs yet can’t find some people who were hospitalized working for the government.

  19. Nik says:

    You know, as soon as those words came out of her mouth, I popped on FB and blasted it. I was pleasantly surprised to see my GF and several others post that they were thinking the same thing.

  20. streetsweeper says:

    It’s a dog n pony show. That’s all. The families will end up fighting with her in court and she’ll skate…

  21. Joe says:

    That’s no way to talk about our future president.

  22. OldSoldier54 says:

    @17 bpete1969

    What you said, Brother.

  23. 2/17 Air Cav says:

    That’s funny, Joe. Oh, not what you said but the vision it prompted. I see H. “Wide Load” Clinton in the Oval Office saying to herself, “So, this is the exact spot where Monica used to blow Bill while Chelsea and I were upstairs?”

  24. Twist says:

    @22, Do you have no soul?

  25. Veritas Omnia Vincit says:

    @24 and that’s probably the exact spot she intends to make Bill suck her d1ck….

  26. Nik says:


    Yah, I never bought into the whole Monica Blewinski thing. Everybody knows Hillary uses Bill’s balls as her own.

  27. David says:

    I think the reason Hillary is getting put in the spotlight is simple… they are already rumoring Biden for a run in 2016, and she is probably the most serious contender they foresee. She will be left to defend herself as the White House defends her with faint praise, until she is nibbled to irrelevancy and Biden is hyped daily as Presidential material. She’s leavin’…. the White House crew owes her no more support, and that’s what she will get.

  28. Nik says:


    they are already rumoring Biden for a run in 2016

    Jesus wept.

    BO is bad enough, but at least we can trust him not to drool on himself or feel someone up on national TV. Right now, our enemies don’t fear or respect us, but if Captain LooneyTunes became C-in-C, we’d be laughed off the planet.

  29. 2/17 Air Cav says:

    @26. Oh man!

  30. Poetrooper says:

    Apparently she’s been ethically challenged all her life:


  31. bpete1969 says:


    Keep in mind that Hillary got the rug pulled out from under her by many in the Democratic party when the current Fetzer-in-Chief ran. The nomination was supposed to be hers and that’s why she positioned herself by pulling the carpetbagger role in NY. 2016 will be no different and I think the Dems will try to support anyone but Hillary. Kerry can win the nomination again if Biden is their only other choice.
    Maybe before all that takes place one of the family members of those lost in Benghazi will give Hillary a swift kick in the nuts and put an end to her political career.

  32. Devtun says:


    Gengis Jawn as Secy of State would be out of the picture in
    2016. Cabinet Officers are prohibited from engaging in political campaigning. He could resign his post in late 2015 or early 2016 and announce his candidacy, but that would be almost inconceivable for the most senior and visible cabinet officer to do so. Really, there are going to be enough hotspots around the world to keep Kerry awfully busy selling us down the river.

  33. USMCE8Ret says:

    If there’s any justice, ethics, patriotism, integrity or just plain common sense left in this country in 4 years, the American people won’t allow another Democrat in the Oval Office. If Biden or Hillary elected, the country is doomed.

    …and Joe is still an idiot dickweed.

  34. Bruce says:

    “Politicians are like diapers. They both need changing
    often and for the same reason.” Mark Twain

  35. obsidian says:

    Then again with Joltin’ Joe Biden as POTUS the democrats would not be able to hide every word he said and one day that’s what will get Joe.
    Recall Gunga Dan Rather and that one time too many faking of reports and papers.

  36. 2/17 Air Cav says:

    We’re about two weeks from the five-month anniversary of the Benghazi assault. Where are the killers, the terrorists, responsible for it? Reportedly, some showed up in Algeria a few weeks ago and murdered again. Who recalls what obamaman said after Benghazi? I’m not talking about what his paid lackeys said but what he himself said. Try this: “And make no mistake, we will work with the Libyan government to bring to justice the killers who attacked our people.” Well, how’s that going, I wonder. Then, months later, we were treated to H. “Wide Load” Clinton’s testimony. The media and others abstracted various pieces of her testimony to spotlight but this one, all but overlooked, is one of my favorites: “What they are trying to determine is how best to respond, and I think what the president clearly said is we will respond and we will bring those to justice. And I don’t think anybody should doubt this president at his word … .” Doubt the president’s word? Not me. No sir! And as for how best to respond, that’s pretty clear to me. The response is somewhere between doing nothing and writing a letter to the editor.

    Between this crap and Kerry, it’s time for me to take a break—before I do break.

  37. 2/17 Air Cav says:

    I was awaiting a Benghazi update thread but I can wait no longer. Yesterday’s testimony from Panetta and Dempsey, whom I prefer to call Poinsettia and Dumpster, respectively, caught limited attention from Big Media. Their testimony established that the extent of their contact with obama after the attack was launched was one solitary phone conference. Following that, no orders or update requests came from the WH again. So, that was that. Our consulate was attacked and for seven hours no one did anything. Panetta had the audacity to pretend that no action was taken because of the duration of the attack versus the time it would have taken to get an adequate response on scene. The problem with his statement? He had no friggin idea how long the assault would last and he never received a push or nod to do ANYTHING! So, the administration DID NOTHING in response to concerns expressed in cables received weeks before the attacks that something was brewing and security was inadequate AND the administration did NOTHING once the attack began on Sept 11. The pretense of surprise and the fairy tale regarding the video no one saw was all to protect obama from the correct assertion that he was fiddling while Rome burned. If the House does not draw up charges, there’s not a testicle in Congress. And H. “Wide Load” Clinton? We already know what she did—absolutely nothing, followed by evasiveness. After all, what didderence does it make!