I'm talking about what Broadwell said publicly in her speech. Starts 40 seconds in on the video in the OP...
"I don't know if a lot of you have heard this, but the CIA annex had actually, um, had taken a couple of Libyan militia members prisoner, and they think that the attack on the consulate was an effort to try to get these prisoners back. So, that's still being vetted."
In other words, she is saying that the CIA was illegally taking Libyans as prisoners and the reason for the attack was the Libyan militia's attempt to rescue those prisoners.
The CIA vehemently denied this was true, and of course they would because it's been illegal by executive order since 2009.
http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/12/cia-denies-claim-from-petraeus-girlfriend-that-benghazi-annex-held-libyan-prisoners/
But why would she say this at all??? Why in the world would she just pull something like that out of her butt? Obviously, if she had known it was illegal for the CIA to be doing this she would have kept her yap shut about it rather than blithely blabbing it publicly especially since it meant the end of her lover whom she worshiped and he could go to jail for it not just lose his job. This woman was the closest person to the CIA director, Petreaus, and was sleeping with him. She had access to him that no one else had and thus could have had information from him that no one else save the CIA agents there could likely get. Personally, I believe that what she so blithely publicly announced was likely true and the CIA is once again doing illegal shit and all the bumbling around with their various stories about what really happened were in an effort to try to cover this info up and hide it from the WH making the resignation of Petreaus for adultery part of his cover-up.
This is not about what Petreaus was doing with his weenie.
= new reply since forum marked as read