We Have Lost Sight as to the True Importance of Hillary’s Emails

This whole “classified email” mess that Hillary has gotten herself in to is entertaining enough and of course quite serious but it has for some time now monopolized the news cycle and taken our sights away from what got us here in the first place.

This all started back on September 11, 2012 at 10:07pm EST when, just after getting off of the phone with President Obama, then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton released a press brief stating that the attack on the US Consulate was spurred by an internet video.  The attack was still underway at the time of this press brief release and intelligence was still being gathered however, word on the ground that the Secretary had received indicated that it was an organized attack.   It is also important to note the phone call exchange between the President and the Secretary was originally buried but later revealed, on accident, through a slip of the tongue by then White House Press Secretary Jay Carney.  The Secretary had previously been questioned as to if she had spoken with the President during that attack and her answer was no.

The story as to what happened that night in Benghazi has spiraled out of control from that point forward.  Hillary’s blaming the attack on an internet video came under immediate attack and rightly so.  Nobody could provide anyone with an explanation as to what lead the State Dept. to believe the video was the case and nobody was talking. The circumstances surrounding the press brief (the secret phone call shared with the president moments before) would not be learned until sometime later and again, only because of a slip of the tongue by Jay Carney.

The Sunday following the Benghazi tragedy was the definitive moment/day as Susan Rice made the rounds on all the Sunday morning news shows repeating a highly scripted set of talking points that backed the internet video claim.  The story simply did not add up and left many scratching their heads and wondering what really happened.

As is always is the case with any such tragedy, congressional oversight automatically kicks in and does its part by investigating the actions and activities of the various agencies to which they are responsible for.  Congressional oversight had their hands full on the Benghazi investigations however, as pieces were not fitting right from the beginning.  There were conflicts in reporting, conflicts in statements and most of all the blaming of the internet video and subsequent Sunday morning news show rounds by Susan Rice doing so just did not fit.


Let the Feet Dragging and Obstructionism Began

Some of the very first documents requested by congressional oversight were the string of emails that were used to craft the talking points used by Susan Rice that Sunday morning.  Oversight got the run around and in fact it took a letter directly to the President, and signed by a number of the oversight chairpersons to finally get this string of emails released.

The final release of these emails created more questions than answers which led to the eventual request for ANY AND ALL DOCUMENTS, from the State Department pertaining to Benghazi to be released to congressional oversight.  This request took place while Hillary was still in office and was never complied with.

The failure of the State Department to release requested documents is well documented in several of the oversightcommittees final reports on Benghazi and it is this failure, on the part of the State Department, to turn over Benghazi related documents that prompted the formulation of the Select Committee on Benghazi, a committee that has more tools in its bag to force parties and departments to comply than the standard congressional oversight committees do.  But even at that, this committee is at the mercy of the DOJ if legal action that would lead to some type of enforcement or criminal investigation were needed, such actions are outside the authority of the Select Committee.   But I digress.

Hillary’s emails became an issue when, from the few documents they were able to pry from the State Department, congressional oversight discovered that there were no emails addressed to or from Hillary Clinton.  Of course members of the committee were looking for a { .gov} email address at the time but her personal email address was not surfacing either.  But eventually a few documents passed through the hands of the oversight committee and the discovery was made that Hillary was using a private email account.  Now the State Department had no choice but to compel Hillary to turn over her email record, which up until that point she had sole custody of.


So here we are Today

While the talking point of “classified emails” on Hillary’s server is consuming all the news room discussions, the real reason we are here and digging into Hillary’s emails is because of Benghazi.

Hillary and her team have done an excellent job of hiding and obstruction anyone from getting their hands on her email record.  I’m sorry, correction, “the peoples” email record.  For two years after her departure from the State Department she held her email record in secrecy and only turned it over after being compelled to do so by the State Department which was facing legal action if it did not start producing documents requested through the FOIA and subpoena.

But Hillary did not turn over her record to the State Department, she turned over some 50,000 pages of emails to which she claims to be the full record but there is no way to verify this as she, at the time, refused to turn over the email server to which they resided.  We have no way of knowing if in fact these 50,000 pages represents her full record and Hillary has given us every reason to believe they are not.  She did conceal the record from the public for two full years before being forced to turn it over right?  As well, email documents have surfaced that are clearly part of Hillary’s record yet were not provided in the 50,000 pages that were turned over to the State Department {or the State Department did not provide them to oversite}.  So there is little confidence that Hillary is being forthcoming to her claim that she has turned over her record in full.

Hillary is without a doubt hiding something and that something may not even be related to Benghazi.  Remember, the unique email arrangement she set up for herself took place right at the start of her tenure as Secretary of State.  In regards to Benghazi, her email arrangement became a convenience which potentially has allowed her to hide troublesome documents.  But the only way we will ever know this is if her email records can be recovered from the hard drive of the email server she deliberately had scrubbed of its contents, yet another action that points to an intentional cover-up.

This is why we are here people, this is why the Select Committee pushed so hard to have her email server put in the hands of an independent 3^rd party and made available for forensic analysis so that an attempt cold be made to recover any documents that may not have been included in Hillary’s interpretation of the complete record.   

As it turns out, other entities have now gotten involved and are attempting to restore the record as well, for other reasons mind you, but the end result will be the same.  If the record is able to be restored and there are more documents related to Benghazi, they will be turned over to the Select Committee.  These documents, if any, are the final step in the Benghazi investigation and will either conclude that there is no there there or that something very bad has been covered up by senior members of our government.   We as Americans should want the answer either way.

Regarding the issue of classified information on Hillary’s email server, that’s a whole other issue and looks as though it is being dealt with accordingly. 

And let us not forget, the record of all senior level government officials should be archived for a number or reasons but if for no other, so that we have a historical account of what has gone on in our government that we can always refer back to.

Hillary Supporters Should Be Ashamed of Themselves

The Democrat’s 2016 Presidential hopeful just can’t seem to shake her little email problem and rightly so, she’s created quite the mess for herself.

Hillary Clinton’s emails have been a point of contention from almost the moment she was sworn in as Secretary of State.  News agencies including the Associated Press and watchdog groups such as Judicial Watch have, through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), made countless document request to the State Department pertaining to the then Secretary’s emails.  Many of these request were made long before the Benghazi tragedy took place and just as has been the case with dozens of similar requests made by congressional oversight, these FOIA requests were never fulfilled.

At the time, it was not known publically that the State Department did not retain custody of the former Secretary’s record {she was in fact still serving as Secretary at the time many of these FOIA requests were made} however, this is no longer the case.  We now know the story behind Hillary’s private email account and home brewed email server.

It was almost two years after Hillary’s tenure as Secretary of State ended that she turned over some 50,000 pages of emails to the State Department.  She did not do so out of duty nor to follow policy, she did so only after the State Department, which was coming under mounting pressure to respond to subpoenas, congressional and FOIA requests, encouraged her to do so.

Shortly after turning the emails over to the State Department the story broke of Hillary conducing State Department business using a private email account as well as having a private email server at her personal residence.  Forced to respond to what was quickly growing into a new scandal, at a news conference, following her March 10th speech at the United Nations Forum on Women in Society, Hillary publically admitting to her exclusive use of a private email account and having her own private email server.  Her explanation for using both was nonsensical at best.

Again, it had been nearly two years since her tenure as Secretary of State ended before the State Department finally compelled Hillary to turn over the record of her time serving at State.  During that two year period, the failure of the State Department to produce all of the former Secretary’s documents pertaining to Benghazi made the news hundreds of times.  There were congressional hearings specific to the failure; countless requests made; four congressional oversight reports released that address the failure and even a letter written to President Obama, singed by several congressmen, asking for his assistance in getting the State Department to comply. 

The State Department’s failure to turn over documents, of which we now know were in the sole possession of Hillary Clinton, bounced in and out of the news cycle countless times over those two years.  All the while, Hillary sat and watched quietly. 

But with little choice other than to act on the State Departments request, in October and November of last year, Hillary and her lawyers scoured over the contents of her email server, scrutinizing each email and hand selecting what they saw fit to represent their interpretation of the full account of Hillary's record as Secretary of State.  Some 50,000 pages, representing roughly 30,000 emails were ultimately printed, boxed and turned over to the State Department in early December of 2014.

While Hillary has not done so under oath, she has repeatedly claimed that the 50,000 pages of emails that were turned over to the State Department are in fact the full record of her time as Secretary of State.  However, twice now, emails link to Hillary but not included in the record she turned over to the State Department, have surfaced thus calling to question the completeness of those 50,000 pages.  As well, there appears to be a two month gap in the email string, a gap that covers a critical period of time being scrutinized by the Benghazi Select Committee.

And so, to ensure that the complete record of the period covering the Benghazi investigation is preserved, Trey Gowdy - Chairman of the Select Committee on Benghazi, requested that Hillary voluntarily turn over her private email server to in independent and impartial 3^rd party so that any missing documents pertaining to their investigation could be retrieved.  This request was immediately denied by Hillary’s attorney who also informed Chairman Gowdy that the email server’s hard drive had been scrubbed thus negating the need for anyone to review its contents.

So let us review what we know to this point:

1.  We know that Hillary set up a private email server and email account to which she claims to have used exclusively or all her email correspondence during her tenure as Secretary of State.

2.  At the end of her service as Secretary, Hillary did not turn over her record as is State Department Policy.

3.  For the following two years, Hillary was fully aware of requests being made for her documents {they were being asked for while still serving} yet she stood by silently and watched the State Department make one excuse after another, never revealing the truth which was that they did not have Hillary’s record.

4.  Once finally compelled to turn over her record, Hillary did not turn over the server but instead, with the aid of her lawyers, reviewed each and every document on her email server and printing out those they collectively decided would become the “official” record of her time serving as Secretary of State.

5.  Hillary has refused to turn over her email server which has been requested to ensure that all documents pertaining to the Benghazi investigation can be retrieved. {Update - she has done so since this blog was first posted}

6.  Hillary’s lawyers have claimed that the email server hard drive has been scrubbed.  {Update - We have learned that the sever was in fact NOT SCRUBBED since this blog was first posted}

Wow, that’s quite the list!

As more and more people look into the circumstances surrounding Hillary Clinton’s emails, we may learn that she in fact broke no laws in creating this unique email arrangement with herself.  We may also learn that there were no classified emails sent or received through her private server as many are claiming.  But, none of this matters. 

For whatever reason, Hillary Rodham Clinton willfully and deliberately set up an unorthodox email system, for herself, to be used during her tenure as Secretary of State.  Then, upon her departure from the State Department, Hillary clearly had no intention of turning over her record as is required by all senior government officials.  This should trouble everyone regardless of political affiliation as it is the duty of every elected official to ensure a complete record is kept, both for transparency and historical purposes.

Beyond failing to fulfil her duty and turn over her record, Hillary stood silently and watched a clear division created in our nation over the Benghazi investigation, a division that would have never happened had the requested documentation been handed over to congressional oversight in a timely manner thus allowing the various investigation to reach  a timely conclusion. 

Instead, nearly three years after the attack, congressional oversight is just now getting State Department documents that were in the custody of the former Secretary all this time.  And still, there is no assurance that the full record has been turned over, all we have is the word of the individual who chose to try and keep them out of the public record.  This too should trouble everyone regardless of political affiliation.  But sadly it does not.

The majority of Democrats still rally their support around Hillary Clinton despite the undeniable string of unethical activities that surround her unique email arrangement and her continued defiance to ensure transparency.

For this, Hillary Clinton supporters should most definitely be ashamed of themselves.

Congressional Oversight Does Not Give State Department a Pass on Benghazi

This past Friday’s public release of nearly 300 hand-picked selections from Hillary Clinton’s private email server set social media and the liberal press ablaze. 

The content of these emails, while new to the public, have been in the possession of the Select Committee on Benghazi for several months now making their release little more than an addition of a few pieces to a largely unfinished puzzle of which congressional democrats continue to claim is complete.  That’s right, this incomplete set of emails, first individually selected from the private Clinton email server by Hillary herself and then scrutinized by her attorney’s before finally being handed over, in hard copy form, to the State Department over two years after the fact, is old news.  However, the public release of these email has given republican pundits new fuel which has once again put the liberal media on the defensive as well as has ignited a new back and forth, over the Benghazi investigations, on social media channels.

The “go to” argument of the left always seems to be the claim that the numerous congressional investigations that have been conducted have all concluded that there was no wrong doing by anyone or any part of the Obama Administration in regards to their actions before, during and after the Benghazi attack.  Nothing could be further from the truth and the final reports from each of the oversight committees reach no such conclusion.  As well, most of the reports are highly critical of the State Department and its failure to cooperate in the investigations.  But sadly the liberally charged main stream media has irresponsibly repeated a highly inaccurate narrative of the findings of each of these investigations of which most who stand on the left of center have willfully embraced as the truth, doing so without question.

But we cannot just claim the liberal media has it wrong, we need to prove it.  And to do so, there is no better way than with the very reports to which the liberal media has intentionally misrepresented.  So, without further ado, let’s get started!


House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Report on Benghazi

In regards to Benghazi, the mission of the House Permanent Select Committee was to assess the Intelligence Community’s (IC) roll in the incident and no other department or agency, as is clearly stated in the final paragraph of the report.  From the last page {page 36}, in the “Conclusion” section, the report reads:

“The report is therefore meant to serve as the definitive House statement on the Intelligence Community’s activities before, during and after the tragic events that caused the deaths of four brave Americans.”

 This report goes in depth as to its investigation and the authors report that they found no wrong doing on the part of the IC.  No place in this report does it mention it investigated any other department or agency nor does it claim any other department or agency was free of guilt or any wrong doing.  Again this committee’s focus was ONLY on the IC and no other government department or agency.

The main stream media or any so called journalistic source including this report as part of their narrative of no wrong doing being found by anyone involved in the Benghazi tragedy is irresponsible as such a portrayal is blatantly incorrect.  You can read the full report HERE.


House Committee on Foreign Affairs Report on Benghazi

In regards to Benghazi, the mission of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs was to assess the failure of accountability from with the State Department.  The State Department, then headed by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, produced an internal audit of itself best known to the public as the Accountability Review Board (ARB) on Benghazi.  From this review came the ARB Report on Benghazi in which the State Department identified numerous shortcomings from within the department that led to the many failures of which were at least in part the cause of loss of American life in the Benghazi attack. 

While the State Department was critical of itself in the ARB report, in the end the State Department held no persons accountable for these failures  This failure to hold anyone accountable spurred public outrage, the reason for which was the crux of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs investigation.  Also, as part of their investigation the House Committee on Foreign Affairs desperately tried to answer the question as to who and why the attack was blamed on an internet video and why the president was absent from the situation room during the entirety of the attack.

The committee was unable to obtain answers to any of these questions due to a complete lack of cooperation from the State Department.  This is expressed in the endnote²¹ sited at the end of the second paragraph of the Introduction section of their report {page 9} which reads:

 

“The State Department has refused to provide copies of critical documents to the Committee, including emails and memoranda between key officials. For over a year, it has permitted Committee staff to review them only in camera, which means that the Committee cannot maintain possession of the documents and is not allowed to make photocopies. The Department has further insisted that one of its own employees be present during limited review periods, which constrains the ability of staff to speak openly about the information. These circumstances are unique to the Benghazi investigation, and the Department has refused to offer a legal justification for its behavior.”

 

To give a clearer picture of what the document review process looked like, picture a room filled with tables and stacks of printed documents on each table, the documents provided in no particular order.  From this, committee members had to sort through and try and make sense the document strings.  At the end of the day, the documents were collected and re-boxed only to be put out again in a new and just as random order as the previous review period.  This made it impossible for oversight to piece together any sort of paper trail.

The main stream media or any so called journalistic source including this report as part of their narrative of no wrong doing being found by anyone involved in the Benghazi tragedy is irresponsible as such a portrayal is blatantly incorrect.  You can read the full report HERE.

 

House Armed Services Subcommittee Report on Benghazi

In regards to Benghazi, the mission of the House Armed Services Subcommittee was to assess the Department of Defense’s (DoD) roll in the incident and no other department or agency, as is clearly stated in the very first line of the Executive Summary of their report which reads:
 

“Immediately after the terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012, the Committee on Armed Services began an ongoing extensive effort to evaluate the response of the Department of Defense (DOD).”

 
as well as the second line of the 3^rd paragraph of the Executive Summary which reads:
 

“In keeping with the committee’s jurisdiction, however, this document addresses only the activities and actions of personnel in DOD.”

 

This report goes in depth as to its investigation and the authors report that they found no wrong doing on the part of the DoD.  No place in this report does it mention it investigated any other department or agency nor does it claim any other department or agency was free of guilt or any wrong doing.  Again this committee’s focus was ONLY on the DoD and no other government department or agency.

It was however, sometimes impossible for the committee to remove completely certain facts pertaining to other departments and agencies from their report.  In some cases it was necessary to include such facts in order to give a full account of the department they were investigating and reporting on.  One such fact is found in the 2^nd bullet point of the “Findings” section of the report which reads:

 

“the Department of State, which has primary responsibility for diplomatic security, favored a reduction of Department of Defense security personnel in Libya before the attack.”

 

This is relevant when you consider that the CIA Annex, located less than a mile away, had  increased its security significantly due to the heightened threat level in Benghazi.  As well, other countries closed and evacuated their diplomatic facilities for the same reason.

The 3^rd bullet in the “Findings” section is significant as well and reads:

 

“Defense Department officials believed nearly from the outset of violence in Benghazi that it was a terrorist attack rather than a protest gone awry, and the President subsequently permitted the military to respond with minimal direction.”

 

The subcommittee faced the same difficulties as other committees had in obtaining information and answers.  Of special interest is a letter written by the subcommittee chairman, to the president, in which the chairman asks four very specific questions directly to the president.  The questions were in regard to his {the president’s} actions during the Benghazi attack.  A reply to the letter was provided not by the president but by the president’s legal counsel in which the buck was passed to other departments to answer these questions thus keeping the president “off record” for any actions or inactions taken on his part that evening. 

To date, nobody really knows who was in charge that evening nor does anyone know exactly what the president was doing most of the night and morning.  While the president was in fact in the White House, nobody can or at least is willing to explain why the president did not find it prudent to join his emergency action team in the Situation Room {Hillary remained in her State Department office the entire evening as well} and nobody inside the White House is talking.

The main stream media or any so called journalistic source including this report as part of their narrative of no wrong doing being found by anyone involved in the Benghazi tragedy is irresponsible as such a portrayal is blatantly incorrect.  You can read the full report HERE.

  

Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Report on Benghazi

In regards to Benghazi, the mission of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence was to assess the intelligence community’s (IC) roll in the incident and no others, as is stated in the opening statement of their report labeled “Purpose” which reads:

 

“The purpose of this report is to review the September 11-12, 2012, terrorist attacks against two U.S. facilities in Benghazi, Libya. This review by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (hereinafter "SSCI" or "the Committee") focuses primarily on the analysis by and actions of the Intelligence Community (IC) leading up to, during, and immediately following the attacks.”

 

The second “Finding” in the report concluded that based on the intelligence information provided the State Department should have increased its security of the Temporary Mission Facility as it is described in the report.  On page 14 of the report it states:

 

“In the months prior to the attack, Ambassador Stevens and other State Department officials in Libya outlined concerns via cables to State Department headquarters about the security of the Mission compound in Benghazi and made several requests for additional security resources.”

 

and on page 16 the report goes on to state:

 

“Despite the clearly deteriorating security situation in Benghazi and requests for additional security resources, few significant improvements were made by the State Department to the security posture of the Temporary Mission Facility.”

 

The requests were made and ignored by senior members within the State Department for reasons unknown and why can only be left to speculation at this point.  The DoD was poised and ready to provide any level of additional security forces requested by the State Department, as was stated by ranking DoD officials in public hearings however, a request never came.

 

On page 35 of the report a very troubling discovery regarding the State Department is revealed:

 

“Based on the Committee's review, the State Department's INR disseminated no intelligence products related to the Benghazi attacks in the year following the attacks. Considering the attacks began on a State Department facility, involved the deaths of two State Department personnel, and were an important indication of escalating threats against U.S. facilities and personnel in the region, the Committee finds it unsettling that INR chose not to, or was unable to, disseminate any analysis related to the attacks or the implications of the attacks.”

 

It appears as though the State Department has gone out of its way to avoid drawing any attention to itself by not performing any post attack reviews of intelligence, or at least no post attack intelligence reviews that anyone from within the State Department has disclosed.  And while it was not the task of this committee to evaluate the actions of the State Department, this discovery was unsettling enough to the committee that they found it necessary bring it to light in their report.

This report goes in depth as to its investigation and the authors report that they found no wrong doing on the part of the IC.  No place in this report does it mention it investigated any other department or agency nor does it claim any other department or agency was free of guilt or any wrong doing.  Again this committee’s focus was ONLY on the IC and no other government department or agency.

Starting on page 66 of the pdf report file linked below, is the Additional Views of the Committee Minority.  These additional views do not change nor dispute the overall conclusions drawn by what has been touted as the most bipartisan committee and report investigation Benghazi.  These views were left out of the main report by mutual consent of the majority and minority parties and of course Chairperson Dianne Feinstein publically expressed her displeasure that they were included as a supplement to the report however, the committee Majority made no attempt to discredit or refute the content of the Additional Views provided by the committee minority. 

In the committee minority additional views, they point out the incredible shortcoming and lack of cooperation, from the State Department, the committee received during their investigation.  The failure to obtain very critical information requested could in fact and likely did influence the outcome of the final report however, oversight must conclude its investigation at some point making it imperative that those reading the findings of the report understand the report was written without full disclosure from the State Department thus leaving some doubt as to what exactly took place.

In the Minority View, it was made clear that the State Department was non-cooperative in providing requested documents, access to witnesses and responding to questions as is indicated in page 7 of their Additional Views which read:

 

Disturbing Lack of Cooperation by the State Department  -  As the Committee attempted to piece together key events before, during, and after the attacks, we faced the most significant and sustained resistance from the State Department in obtaining documents, access to witnesses, and responses to questions.

The 2^nd through 4^th opening paragraphs of the Minority View also addresses the lack of cooperation received by the Obama Administration.  They read as follows:

 

While the Committee has completed its report, important questions remain unanswered as a direct result of the Obama Administration's failure to provide the Committee with access to necessary documents and witnesses. We believe the Administration's lack of cooperation is directly contrary to its statutory obligation to keep the congressional intelligence committees fully and currently informed and has effectively obstructed the Committee's efforts to get to the ground truth with respect to these remaining questions. Too often, providing timely and complete information to Congress is viewed by the Administration as optional or an accommodation, rather than compliance with a statutory requirement. It is our view that the Committee should have held a vote to exercise its subpoena power to end this obstruction, once and for all, in the early stages of the review.

As we prepared these Additional Views, the Executive branch still has not provided all relevant documents to the Committee. Other documents have been provided to the Committee on a "read only" basis, meaning that the Committee Was only permitted to view them for a limited period of time, while being supervised by the coordinating agency, and had to rely upon our notes when preparing the report.  Significantly, key Executive branch witnesses who were directly involved in decisions that affected the ability of the United States to defend or respond to these attacks have declined our invitations to be interviewed by the Committee, even after being returned to full duty by the State Department.  In other cases, the testimony provided to the Committee contradicted written documents we reviewed, or-as with some of the testimony by the Under Secretary of State for Management, Patrick Kennedy-was particularly specious.

 

We understand that mistakes can be made during the back-and-forth of oral testimony, but when that occurs, the Intelligence Community (IC) and the Executive branch have historically been quick to correct the record. Yet, we are still waiting for some of these troubling contradictions to be resolved. Further, in what is becoming a habitual refrain, the Administration has made repeated and spurious claims of the "executive" and "deliberative process" privileges, serving to deny information to the Committee that was otherwise relevant to our review.  Similarly, information has been withheld from the Committee because of the "ongoing criminal investigation" into the attacks, in an apparent effort to shield certain government agencies from congressional oversight or potential embarrassment. We have also learned that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has developed significant information about the attacks and the suspected attackers that is not being shared with Congress, even where doing so would not in any way impact an ongoing investigation.

 

Additional Views of the Committee Majority are also included in the report linked below, beginning on page 61 of the pdf file.  While there is little in the additional views of the majority that would lend to this particular writing they are interesting none the less and I encourage those who have not read them to do so, just as I encourage everyone to read each of the congressional committee’s reports on Benghazi. 

There are three quick points in the majority views worthy of noting however.  First, the majority found that the attacks on the US facilities in Benghazi were likely preventable based on the security shortcomings discovered during the investigation; second, the majority’s acknowledgment of bipartisanship in conducting their oversight investigation and report; and last, their appreciation to the IC and their efforts to aid in the investigation.  No such appreciation was extended to the State Department or Executive Branch of which they called on heavily for documents and information they never received.

The main stream media or any so called journalistic source including this report as part of their narrative of no wrong doing being found by anyone involved in the Benghazi tragedy is irresponsible as such a portrayal is blatantly incorrect.  You can read the full report HERE.

In Conclusion

The above excerpts, drawn directly from the reports prepared by the various oversight committees investigating their respective areas of authority in regards to Benghazi, make it crystal clear that none of the reports have cleared all departments and government entities of any wrong doing.   Second, it is painfully clear that the State Department has failed, first in ensuring American abroad were protected to the best of our ability and second in being truthful and  honest to the American people to which the department serves.  Every committee had difficulty in obtaining requested information and documentation from the State Department and in most cases simply gave up doing so in order to keep from dragging out their investigation forever.

What is most saddening however is the media bias, in regards to Benghazi, which has existed since the day of the attack.  The liberal media has placed protective fiction over damaging fact all in an effort to protect and agenda of the Obama Administration and what was even view back then as the 2016 presidential hopeful, Hillary Clinton.

It’s Getting Harder to Look Democrats in the Eye

Undeniably, politics has been marred by more than its fair share of wrong doings by participants from both sides of the isle over the years, but never has a single administration been so callous and shown such an indifference to right and wrong as has the Obama Administration.   And just when you think that they can’t possibly come up with another scandal or cover-up there they go again!

While it may seem inconsequential to most democrats, to the administration the Hillary Clinton email scandal is significant and reaches far beyond the possibility of damaging the party’s golden girl and her prospects of running for the presidency in 2016.  When put into perspective, the Hillary email controversy could prove to be a much larger scandal than Nixon’s Watergate and undeniably a much greater cover-up.  If the truth behind Emailgate, as it has been so aptly named, is ever learned, it could be the scandal that brings down the entire administration, unless of course, democrats happen to let them get away with it!

As you read the progression of events regarding Hillary Clinton’s private email account used during her time as Secretary of State, it becomes abhorrently clear to any rational thinking person that Hillary’s actions were deliberate and with premeditated purpose.  From creating the email accounts to making the choice not to turn them over to the State Department and then on to the scrubbing of her email server’s hard drive, each action was a necessary escalation driven by events occurring during her service as Secretary of State.

Here is a recap of what has gone on with Hillary and her private email she used to conduct her business as Secretary of State on:

·         Just days before being confirmed as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton has a private email account set up on her in-home private email server.

 

·         During her four years as Secretary of State, Hillary uses two different private @clintonemail.com email addresses exclusively, for all State Department business, including communications with some of her aids, who had also used private email accounts, as has just recently been learned.

 

·         During her time serving as Secretary of State, the State Department failed to respond to numerous FOIA requests for documents pertaining to the Secretary, submitted by various media outlets and watchdog groups.

 

·         Just days after the 9/11 attack on the US Consulate and CIA Annex in Benghazi, Libya, the first congressional oversight request for documents from the Secretary of State was made to the State Department.  The request was never fulfilled.

 

·         Upon departure from the State Department, Hillary does not turn over an electronic or a hard copy of any emails generated through her private email server and from her private email account covering her time as Secretary of State.

 

·         John Kerry takes over as Secretary of State and vows him and his Stated Department’s full cooperation in the Benghazi investigations.

 

·         Numerous congressional oversight committees, investigating various departments and their actions as they pertained to the events surrounding the Benghazi attack, stated clearly in their final reports that the State Department was non-cooperative in releasing requested information.  This in turn hampered the particular committee’s investigation and in some cases their final conclusions.

 

·         State Department agrees to allow congressional oversight to review some 25,000 documents but would not turn custody of the documents over to the committees.  Oversight had to meet in a room where the documents were made available, were allowed to review and take notes and at the end of the day the documents were boxed up and secured.  This process made it near impossible to create a time line or string documents together for proper oversight.  Also, no emails addressed to or from Secretary Clinton were amongst any of these 25,000 documents that were reviewed by oversight.

 

·         After numerous failed requests for documentation pertaining to Benghazi, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, chaired by Darrell Issa, issued two subpoenas to the State Department.  Neither subpoena was ever responded to and they still remain active today.

 

·          Republicans gain full control of congress which changes the complexion of congressional oversight and their {republican’s} ability to fend off democratic stonewalling and obstruction of their duty to conduct oversight.

 

·         The State Department made its last production of materials to the House Oversight Committee on April 17, 2014.  In all the time spanning from the very first document request made by any oversight committee on the subject of the Benghazi attack, the State Department had never turned over a single email to or from Hillary.

 

·         Select Committee on Benghazi was formed, chaired by Trey Gowdy, on May 8, 2014.

 

·         A renewed demand for documents, pertaining to Benghazi, fell upon the State Department.

 

·         At some point the State Department reaches out to Hillary Clinton for emails.  Despite the countless FOIA requests, congressional oversight document requests and at least two subpoenas, the State Department has never disclosed to anyone that they did not have physical custody of Hillary’s emails from her tenure as Secretary of State.

 

·         At her sole discretion, Hillary sorts through her private emails on her private server and prints those documents that she chooses to hand over to the State Department.

 

·         August 11, 2014, State Department turns over fewer than a dozen documents to the Select Committee which, for the first time ever, included emails to/from Hillary Clinton.  It was in these documents that oversight first discovered that Hillary was using private @clintonemail.com email addresses to conduct official State Department business.

 

·         November 18, 2014 the committee sent a request to both the State Department and to Hillary Clinton demanding all her emails from her personal eclintonemail.com email addresses.

 

·         Email server is “wiped clean” sometime between Oct and Dec. 2014.

 

·         December 2014 – boxes containing 50,000 printed pages of Hillary’s emails were delivered to the State Department.   Hillary would some time later publically claim that these 50,000 pages make up the full record of emails which resided on her private server, during her time as Secretary of State.

 

·         State Department reviews the 50,000 pages of emails and produces roughly 900 pages pertaining to Benghazi, to be turned over to the Select Committee.

 

·         After 2 1/2 years of request and subpoenas, on Feb. 11, 2015 the State Department delivers the first substantial number of Clinton documents {850 pages of Clinton emails} to the Select Committee, emails which originated from two separate private @clintonemail.com email accounts.

 

·         Select Committee discovers a hole in the emails provided by State Department.  The hole {missing emails} covered the most critical time period of the Benghazi investigation.

 

·         In early March 2015, the Select Committee first learns that Hillary’s private email account resided on a private email server owned and in the custody of the Clinton’s.

 

·         Hillary speaks publically of her private email server and email account she used during her time as Secretary of State.  She claimed she use as single email address for both personal and State Department business out of convenience of having to use only one device. Hillary also stated that she believed her emails were being archived as she communicated with others only using their government email addresses.  Hillary also discloses that all her personal emails have been deleted from the server and that the server would remain in her custody.

 

·         Select Committee Chairman attempts to compel Hillary to turn her email server over to an independent third party for review to avoid having to do so through legal channels.

 

·         Speaker Boehner suggests that they may take legal action to obtain the Clinton email server as it is the only record of her time as Secretary of State and must be preserved.

 

·         March 27, 2015 a letter from Hillary’s attorney, stating that they would not be turning over the email server as the hard drive and all backup devices and been “wiped clean” of the period that encompassed Hillary’s time served as Secretary of State and therefore contained no useful information to the committee.

 

·         Just yesterday the Associated Press reported that, contrary to Hillary’s claim of choosing to use single email and device out of convenience, she used both a Blackberry and an iPad to communicate with her staff even prior to the Benghazi attack.  Also, Hillary still remains unchallenged, by democrats, as to how she can only manage a single email account on one device.

 

After reading through Hillary’s private email chronology, two things become very apparent:

First; controlling access and custody of her emails while serving as Secretary of State was a deliberate and intentional act pre-conceived by Hillary Clinton or an advisor.  The reason for doing so most likely being that Hillary had thoughts of taking a run at the presidency again and in the position of Secretary of State, was trying to limit the chance of any of the tens of thousands of her Secretary of Stated email correspondences from ever facing public scrutiny.  Operating her own email server gave her exclusive control of her electronic correspondence “just in case”.

Second; at some point during her time as Secretary, an event took place that, if the truth were to be learned by the public, would be highly damaging to herself and/or others, making it imperative that she maintain full control and custody of her emails, as well as, deny access of them to anyone, at any cost.

And it is the “at any cost” where it grows harder and harder to look democrats in the face.

What has transpired over the past few weeks makes it beyond impossible to deny something is being covered up.  Whether one wishes to believe the cover-up extends beyond the Secretary herself is their personal choice however, Hillary’s actions to conceal the contents of emails, which belong to the people, is a clear indictment of her guilt to a crime which is defined in the very emails she is purposely concealing from the people she once served.

And yet, Hillary Clinton’s popularity amongst democrats remains virtually unwavered, the latest polls showing that she is still the top candidate to capture the democratic presidential nomination by a very large margin, if she so chooses to run.

Listening to democrats defend the indefensible has left a sour taste in the mouths of those who have simply grown tired of the party’s ease and willingness to endorse wrong over right in their “at any cost” effort to expand and protect their parties brand.  Another perfect example of the democrats “at any cost” approach came just recently from an interview with Harry Reid where, when questioned on his 2012 election cycle fabricated declaration that Mitt Romney had not paid taxes for over a decade, Reid’s undignified response to the question was nothing more than “Romney didn’t win did he?”   

And be it Hillary Clinton’s email cover-ups; Harry Reid’s blatant willingness to fabricate lies; President Obama’s national fear mongering platform of the doom and gloom that would befall all of American if the 2013 sequester were allowed to happen; or of course, the very event that led us to Emailgate, the tall tale told of an internet video being the cause for the attack on US assets in Benghazi which left four American’s dead, the democratic response is the same  ……  “There is nothing to see here”.

Clearly, the moral compass of the majority of democrats is severely broken.  With their willingness to overlook the countless wrongdoings of the leadership in their party, it makes it very difficult to engage in a civil exchange of thoughts and ideas much less trust in anything they say or do.  It’s even getting hard to look a democrat in the face without complete contempt.