Well, I just heard it on one of their shows.
On Hugh Hewitt of all places. Early in the first hour of his Oct 22, 2015 show.
What I heard was a report of the Benghazi hearing by Hewitt’s guest whose name I didn’t catch.
What he said was approximately this:
‘there was clearly a conspiracy between DOS and the WH to deny that Benghazi was a terrorist attack so as not to undermine Obama’s reelection narrative that Al Qaeda was on the run.’[Anyone can capture this comment from a podcast it will verify what I heard. I don’t know if there is a free one and I won’t pay that hack to hear his show. If a reader can capture it I will add it to this post. Thanks.]
Hewitt didn’t call him a conspiracy nut like his colleague Medved likes to do most every day. He accepted it and engaged him in further discussion.
Reading between the lines I get the following.
What I think this open talk of a conspiracy does, however, is deflect from the thought of the deeper conspiracy. The one that might come to wider attention but for the notable lack of more probing questions such as
“What happened to over 1000 of Gaddafi’s ManPADs?” andConspiracy to gain election seems to be accepted as par for the course in America today, at least when the Dems are caught at it. What felonious conduct?
“Where does intelligence say some turned up?” and
“Why exactly was Ambassador Stevens in Benghazi in the first place?”
But conspiracy to commit treason rises to another level entirely. So don’t expect your favorite conservative talkshow host to call that one out.