I never allowed politics to influence what I said or did.  Never.” –  Former CIA Deputy Director Michael Morrell.

If you watched the Benghazi hearing conducted Wednesday by the House Intelligence Committee, you saw Michael Morrell provide testimony as a willing partner in the cover-up of the  Sept. 11, 2012 Benghazi attack.

You will recall that after a late afternoon 30-minute briefing on the attack by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen.Martin Dempsey, President Obama never checked back with Panetta to review the status in Benghazi, and within hours was on Air Force One headed for a fundraising event in Las Vegas

Meanwhile, Morrell, and representatives of the NSA, FBI, Defense Intelligence and the State Department, were writing and rewriting talking points to remove all mention of Al Qaeda.  They knew the administration’s position on Al Qaeda and terrorism going into the election and the president was going to tell crowds in Las Vegas, and subsequently in Colorado, that “Al Qaeda was on the run, and Osama was dead.”  And blaming the attack on protestors upset with an anti-Muslim video was inserted.

Protecting Hillary Clinton was also of utmost importance.  Everyone around her knew her reputation had to be squeaky clean since her aspirations for the office of the president were commonly known at the State Department.  We had the first ambassador killed in two decades and Victoria Nuland, Clinton’s spokesperson at State, would have us believe she never discussed the talking points with her boss. In an e-mail she referenced concern from “building leadership” about the wording. Who else would that be?

During his testimony, Morrell said he was deeply troubled by allegations “that I inappropriately altered and influenced CIA’s classified analysis and its unclassified talking points about what happened in Benghazi, Libya in September 2012 and that I covered up those actions.  These allegations accuse me of taking these actions for the political benefit of President Obama and then Secretary of State Clinton.  These allegations are false.”

While much of the discussion about Benghazi has concerned the failure to come to the aid of Ambassador Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty; In fact there were serious warnings over a five-month period leading up to the night of the attack.

Morrell took it upon himself to delete mentions of those warnings because he didn’t want it to appear that the State Department (and Clinton) didn’t heed CIA warnings. And, he ignored the input of the on-site Benghazi station chief and chose instead to accept that of analysts thousands of miles away in Langley, VA.  Of course, they backed the reports of protests.

In the past 18 months, Independent and congressional investigations largely fault the State Department for inadequate security at the Libyan post, but in each finding, Clinton’s role is minimized and rarely mentioned.  Clinton herself convened the Accountability Review Board (ARB) to investigate the Sept. 11, 2012 attack.  The appointment of Ambassador Thomas R. Pickering and Admiral Michael Mullen to lead the review was supposed to give us comfort that it would be above reproach.

While the ARB’s unclassified report of findings did capture the milestone of events leading up to and including the night of the attack, it should be noted that Pickering and Mullen, unbelievably, did not go to Benghazi as part of the investigation.  What’s more, they didn’t interview Clinton, nor is her name mentioned other than in the introduction as the convener of the ARB.

Pickering defended the team’s decision not to interview Clinton, stating that key decisions during the months ahead of the attack and on the night of the attack did not involve her.  Clearly, it was a whitewash to cover for Clinton.

Later, Clinton refused to budge on her long-standing refusal to do Sunday shows. “She hates them. She would rather die than do them,” said an aide on condition of anonymity.  A number of key White House staffers were considered, but were passed over for various reasons.  It isn’t known whether CIA Director David Petraeus was considered, although it was known that he opposed the rewrite of the talking points.  So Susan Rice was called upon to handle the five Sunday news shows using the bogus video protest line.

A month later, Clinton was off on another trip; this time to Peru, where she sat for a series of what she thought were safe interviews away from the Washington press corps.  In those sessions she accepted responsibility, but still defended the protest view and blamed the fog of war.  Watch her interview with CBS correspondent Margaret Brennan here.

It wasn’t until Jan. 23, 2013 that she appeared before a Senate committee and went ballistic making her infamous “what difference does it make” statement during questioning by Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI).

In my last post, Hillary’s embarrassing event no “reset” with Russia, I introduced you to her trusted confidant and image protector, Philippe Reines.

I find it interesting that Reines is now one of the founding members of Beacon Global Strategies, a Washington think tank, that has become a revolving door for ex White House, State Department, CIA, and DOJ individuals.  Guess who has joined Beacon as counselor?  That’s right, Michael Morrell.

If Clinton decides to run in 2016, you can be sure that Morrell and Reines will be working behind the scenes to “handle” the media.  Kramerontheright will be here to remind you of her failings.

CONCLUDING NOTE:  If you find it difficult to believe that the President and Clinton would participate in a cover-up of the Benghazi attack for political reasons, recall the revelation made by Robert Gates in his book, Duty.  Both admitted taking political positions on the Iraq surge during their 2008 campaigns.  Then there was  the arrogance of President Obama as he called the uproar over Benghazi a “phony scandal.”