Over at PJMedia, columnist Roger Simon reports that at least three additional potential whistleblowers — leagues of the former diplomats — are lawyering-up in advance of testifying about “what really transpired in Benghazi.”

Report: More Benghazi whistleblowers to come forward?

“Harumph.” (Image: Getty)

According to Simon, the details could be “potentially devastating to both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.”  Indeed, if these details are true, this could be a real game-changer.  Emphasis mine:

The former diplomats inform PJM the new revelations concentrate in two areas — what Ambassador Chris Stevens was actually doing in Benghazi and the pressure put on General Carter Ham, then in command of U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) and therefore responsible for Libya, not to act to protect jeopardized U.S. personnel.

Stevens’ mission in Benghazi, they will say, was to buy back Stinger missiles from al-Qaeda groups issued to them by the State Department, not by the CIA. Such a mission would usually be a CIA effort, but the intelligence agency had opposed the idea because of the high risk involved in arming “insurgents” with powerful weapons that endanger civilian aircraft. [...]

This left Stevens in the position of having to clean up the scandalous enterprise when it became clear that the “insurgents” actually were al-Qaeda – indeed, in the view of one of the diplomats, the same group that attacked the consulate and ended up killing Stevens. [...]

He added that he and his colleagues think the leaking of General David Petraeus’ affair with his biographer Paula Broadwell was timed to silence the former CIA chief on these matters.

Regarding General Ham, military contacts of the diplomats tell them that AFRICOM had Special Ops “assets in place that could have come to the aid of the Benghazi consulate immediately (not in six hours).”

Ham was told by the White House not to send the aid to the trapped men, but Ham decided to disobey and did so anyway, whereupon the White House “called his deputy and had the deputy threaten to relieve Ham of his command.

If true, these report actually confirms some of my own suspicions about the motives behind the government’s response to the attack and the timing of Petraeus’ scandal.  In addition, Gen. Ham later resigned from his post, but his is just one of many turnovers in command at AFRICOM and the Middle East in recent years.

Simon notes that these reports are “largely hearsay,” information obtained from secondary sources.  But according to other sources, one of whistleblowers who testified on Capitol Hill is still urging Congress to investigate the reason why Stevens was in Benghazi and why Secretary Clinton insisted on establishing a more permanent diplomatic post, suggesting there’s still more to this story.  Stay tuned…