An assumption has been made that Hillary Clinton has the motive to orchestrate a Russian Benghazi. It is claimed that she could be involved in the murder of Russian ambassador.
The following is the view of author Ruslan Ostashko.
I was taught to always look for two things in every crime: who has a motive and who has the tools to realize their criminal plans. Based on these two principles, I am inclined to believe that there is great probability that Hillary Clinton is personally behind the murder of our ambassador to Turkey.
The former Secretary of State and presidential candidate had a very serious motive to order this crime. This motive is not rational, but this does not mean that it is any less serious. This motive is exacting personal revenge on the Russian president. But let’s start with the other question: did Hillary Clinton have the capability of organize the murder of the Russian ambassador? Yes.
Turkish authorities are already saying that the murder was linked to the Fethullah Gulen’s secret organization which is famous for its close ties to the CIA and US State Department. As experts following Islamic organizations are saying, the claim that the armed Jaish al-Fath opposition coalition (earlier known as Al-Nusra) had taken responsibility for Andrey Karlov’s murder turned out to be a fake.
Putting all of these factors together, the theory that the murderer worked for Gulen’s organization is more convincing. This organization’s links to the CIA and State Department are well known. They include financing as well as legal, organizational, and informational support. No wonder Gulen has lived in the US for many years and American authorities refuse to extradite this “preacher” to Turkey.
If the killer really is from this organization, and this is precisely what Turkish authorities are saying, then there are only two variants to explain what happened: (1) either Gulen has gone insane and lost all fear and sense of self-preservation and decided to sanction the murder of the Russian ambassador without approval from his American sponsors and old friends, or (2) he got permission or even the order from someone to organize this assassination.
Gulen could have received approval or such an order from American intelligence, specifically the CIA, i.e., the team that tried to bring Hillary Clinton to power, or from Donald Trump’s team. I don’t believe that Donald Trump would have approved such. First of all, he wins nothing from this. Secondly, it is unlikely that such a staunch supporter of the Clinton clan as Gulen would suddenly decide to change masters.
In fact, there is a good book by ex-FBI agent Sibel Edmonds about Gulen’s patrons in the CIA and how the CIA uses his organization’s cells in Central Asia. The book tells, among other things, of how the former head of the CIA’s presence in Kabul personally resolved Gulen’s issues with American immigration services.
Thus, we are dealing with a situation in which the murder was most likely committed by a representative of an organization tied to the CIA which, with varying degrees of success, has been used for color revolutions. No one gains any political benefit from murdering the Russian ambassador, and only a complete idiot could assume that Putin will now get angry and start bombing Ankara. Our enemies are not idiots. The attack on the ambassador looks more like an action intended to show both supporters and opponents of Clinton that the supranational elite still has gunpowder.
Try to look at this situation not through the eyes of a Russian, but through the eyes of an American politician. When you look at the footage of Andrey Karlv’s murder, you’ll be reminded of Griboyedov, but an American politician will remember the death of Ambassador Stevens in Benghazi. The murder of the American ambassador in Libya was a serious personal nightmare for Hillary Clinton which has haunted her for many years and very negatively impacted her political career.
Let’s recall the background of this story which American officials and journalist from Hillary Clinton’s pool don’t like to talk about. Ambassador Stevens was killed by terrorists in Benghazi, Libya which was (attention!) under the control of militants fighting against Gaddafi. The terrorists stormed the US consulate in Benghazi and killed the ambassador along with several guards. This is the official version which is missing a few details that have since been unearthed by American media and are really unpleasant for Hillary Clinton, who sent the ambassador to Benghazi.
These details were exposed by Seymour Hersh, the famous American journalist and human rights activist, Pulitzer Prize winner, free press contributor awarded by the Media Foundation in Leipzig, winner of the Ridenhour Prize and other international awards. This journalist writes, citing his sources in the US intelligence services and sources in the US Senate, that the Benghazi consulate dealt with only one thing: the transfer of arms from Libyan militants to Syrian militants of the so-called ‘Free Syrian Army.’ The consulate had no political role.
Citing its own sources, Fox News has reported that literally an hour before his murder, Ambassador Stevens held talks on the transfer of an S-200 from Libyan militants to Syria. Even the name of the Turkish ship which was chartered for this purpose was revealed along with the fact that a Turkish diplomat participated in the negotiations.
Apparently, the negotiations went bad. This is not the first case in which the snake has bitten its handler. For the Americans, this was not the first time they created their own Bin Laden only to then suffer negative consequences.
For Hillary Clinton, the murder of Ambassador Stevens and especially his participation in transferring arms from Libya to Syria were a big problem. First of all, Congress had not given permission for such operations, and this was a very serious problem. CNN said that CIA officers working in Libya had warned that not only they, but also their families, would have problems if someone informed Congressman of what they were really doing in Benghazi.
Secondly, Clinton was blamed for having sent Stevens to Benghazi without guaranteeing him standard security.
Thirdly, the lie which her State Department told about Stevens’ activities is plain ridiculous. For example, the State Department claimed that the ambassador had gone to Benghazi to open a cultural center. Can you imagine a cultural center in the middle of a city taken by radical Islamic terrorists?
All of these aspects became a personal nightmare for Hillary Clinton, an eternal stain on her image, and an eternal occasion for her competitors to criticize here. And now let’s recall how she openly said that she has a personal conflict with Vladimir Putin. She claimed that Putin personally took revenge on her by personally organizing the hacking that led to her electoral defeat.
What could this ambitious American hawk do? How could she repair her reputation as a strong politician capable of delivering a painful blow at Vladimir Putin himself? Do you all not think that the murder of an ambassador who via diplomatic canons is the personal representative of the Russian president, is a perfect revenge? In fact, this is quite in Clinton’s character. Just remember how she rejoiced over Gaddafi’s murder.
Do you all not think that we have before us a successful attempt to force Putin to live through his own Benghazi? Hillary Clinton and the elite grouping that supports her could not organize a hacking of United Russia. In fact, I’m not even sure if United Russia has a server. They couldn’t have organized terrorist attacks in Russia, even though they may have tried. But they did have the resources to murder Russia’s ambassador to Turkey, and not only the resources, but an entire organization that they have nurtured and controlled for decades.
Revenge for the elections – there’s your motive. Gulen’s organization – there’s your tool for realization. And you also have the accusations against Putin, whom some of our fellow citizens blame for not organizing standard security for the ambassador. From the Americans’ point of view, this was a real “Russian Benghazi”, that is, if you leave out the fact that our ambassador was opening a photo exhibition and not peddling missiles for terrorists.
Maybe we, ordinary citizens, will never learn the truth, or maybe only our grandchildren will. But if I were investigating this crime, Hillary Clinton would clearly be number one on the list of suspects no matter how wild or conspiratorial this theory might seem to some. What do you think?