This is not a rhetorical question.
In last night’s Democratic debate, Hillary Clinton was asked about how Patricia Smith, the mother of one of the Americans who was killed in the Benghazi attacks, accused Clinton of lying to her at her son’s funeral.
Without skipping a beat, Clinton answered: “She’s wrong, she’s absolutely wrong.”
Now, I have to ask: Why would Smith say it if it weren’t true?
This is not a rhetorical question. I really am asking! I’m a pretty doggone creative person, but no matter how hard I try, I just cannot seem to think of a single reason why Smith would lie about this.
After all, it’s not as if Smith has anything to gain politically. (Seeing as, you know, she’s not a politician.) Hillary, on the other hand, has a lot to politically lose if she admits that she did indeed look this woman in the eyes at her only son’s funeral and lie to her about his death.
#share#To be clear, Hillary’s saying that Smith is “wrong” to accuse her either (a) being delusional and imagining scenarios that did not happen or (b) of being someone who would deliberately lie to her at her own son’s funeral for seemingly no reason at all (that is, of being a twisted and downright despicable person).
#related#Oh and by the way: Smith is not the only family member of a victim to accuse Hillary of lying to them about something surrounding the attacks during the casket ceremony. Charles Woods, the father of former Navy Seal Tyrone Woods, even challenged Hillary to take a lie detector test over it.
So who should we believe? I suppose I can’t say for sure. After all, I wasn’t there. But one of two things must be true: Either Smith and Woods made up damning accusations about Hillary without having any conceivable motive to do so — or they are telling the truth, and Hillary, who has an obvious motive for wanting to deny them, is now lying about lying.