Lead Benghazi Bloodhound Senator Kelly Ayotte Says Something Stinks

Back when this interview first aired (Nov 2013), I became certain about a few things regarding Benghazi.  Republicans who had hoped it could swing an election will not dismiss the deception that they think robbed Romney.  I am also certain that the lead detective, Senator Kelly Ayotte; enough of a bloodhound to take the lead over John McCain and Lindsey Graham, would sniff her way to the very end of the Benghazi trail.

At the time of this video, the concern of an intensely serious Ayotte, was uncovering people who witnessed this event but were being withheld from additional questioning.

 I rested my confidence in the fact that Ayotte would track down all of the unknown facts and available witnesses.  Ayotte choice of words told me that she would never outright lie just for political expediency. When Kelly Ayotte stops searching for facts, then there simply are no more to be found.

Today I saw Ayotte on the air again and she has now loosened the wrinkles in her forehead over Benghazi. She is still none too happy, but the tone of her concern has shifted a bit.  I will paraphrase today's Ayotte on Benghazi.

According to Ayotte, we have to understand that, when the white house lied about this attack being coordinated by Al Qaeda, they knew it was a lie and did it just to help the president win the white house again.

Now if you are anything like me, you stop and scratch your head at this moment of the Benghazi shuffle to ask yourself, "why would the president and his team work to hurt their own campaign"?  Somewhere since November and now, Ayotte has done this same scratching because she has uncovered a new reason to keep talking about Benghazi.  Not only did the president's team sugar coat the truth, but the CIA changed the talking points report to remove the word terrorism as well.

Even if the president did change his tone that would be smart campaigning.  If the CIA did the same, that is  not very scrupulous, especially if someone in the white house is forcing our national security departments to distort reporting  for the sake of an election.

Ayotte sat in a meeting in which the CIA tried to blame the FBI for changing the talking points memo on Benghazi.  When she contacted the FBI, who flatly denied their involvement, the CIA recanted and admitted that they changed the wording.

By now, it was getting really juicy to my ears, so I moved closely to the television to hear the final bark from this Benghazi bloodhound.  For the third time in the interview, Ayotte repeated that, "you have to understand that in the context of an election, it (the word terrorism) did not fit their (the Obama administration's) narrative", said Ayotte.  As she proceeded, I leaned in closer.  "That is why it was......well it doesn't pass the smell test"

I waited on pins and needles to hear her say that she believes a crime was committed or someone needs to be fired or reprimanded.  The best she could declare on Benghazi is that in the context of an election, it doesn't pass the smell test?  Ayotte is the last worthy mouthpiece that we need to hear on this topic because she is the lead dog of the republican bloodhound crew.  If Ayotte says that this was about an election and about driving a positive narrative, we can assume she is right.

If she is not saying that it was a crime, it might be time to move on.