Why are we calling it the “Clinton” Email Scandal?

Had it not been for the trail of bread crumbs the various committees investigating the Benghazi tragedy followed, we likely would have never learned about Hillary Clinton’s unique email arrangement she had with herself, an arrangement she set up at the start of her tenure as Secretary of State.  But we did learn about her private email account and server and since that time the Clinton Email Scandal has been in the news cycle almost 24/7. 

At the very least, Hillary is responsible for doing some very stupid and possibly even illegal acts pertaining to the handling of her emails and the use of a private server, but should Hillary be the one to bare the burden of her email indiscretions? 

Sworn in as the 67^th Unite States Secretary of State on Jan 21, 2009, Hillary on that same day began to use her newly installed email server and account to conduct all of her official government business on.  Senior officials inside the State Department were most certainly aware of her unique email arrangement, it would have been impossible for them not to be.

At no point during Hillary Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State did she use a government email account to conduct State Department business, in fact, she was never even issued a state.gov email account, the issuance of which is assumed to be normal protocol for any new staff members joining the State Department.  Normal protocol was likely to also include someone responsible for distributing Hillary’s email address to the appropriate officials and aids inside the State Department and other individuals who would be in the Secretary’s normal chain of communication, including the President, Vice President and the president’s Chief of Staff just to name a few.  Distribution of her email address may have included foreign officials as well.  The email that would have been distributed would of course have been Hillary’s clintonemail.com email account.

Not long after Hillary’s arrival to the State Department the National Archives and Records Administration issue regulations requiring agencies which allowed employees to conduct official business on nonofficial email accounts to ensure those records were preserved “in the appropriate agency recordkeeping system.”  Certainly the appropriate department within the State Department received notice of this new regulation however, no record of Hillary’s email correspondence, outside of her private server, was ever preserved.  Someone within the State Department made the conscious decision keep the Secretary’s emails out of the department’s archives.  Even if it were Hillary Clinton herself that made this decision, others within the State Department would have been well aware of this fact.  Hillary did not do her own secretive IT work, heck, according to her, she can hardly manage two portable electronic devices at once.

Then there are the FOIA requests.  Throughout Hillary Clinton’s time served in the State Department, and beyond, there have been countless FOIA requests pertaining to email records of the Secretary’s, that have all gone unanswered.  These requests have come from a number of news agencies including one from the Associated Press which dates back over 4 years and the subject of a pending lawsuit.  As it turns out, these FOIA request were ignored by the State Department due to the simple fact that they did not have any of the requested documents in their possession.  Officials within the Stated Department knew exactly where they were however.

Congressional oversight faced a similar fate as many news agencies did, in collection emails from the former Secretary.  One such account was that of the House Oversight Committee's Subcommittee on National Security, Homeland Defense and Foreign Operations which after failing to receive any requested documents pertaining to Benghazi and linked to Hillary, the chairman of the committee, Rep. Jason Chaffetz, sent a letter directly to Secretary Clinton asking for "all information” related to the attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi.  At the time of her departure from the State Department on February 1, 2013, Secretary Clinton had not responded to the chairman’s request.  And in the final reports released by three of the congressional oversite committees tasked with investigating certain aspect of the Benghazi tragedy, they each included harsh criticism of the State Department for their lack of cooperation in providing requested documents.

As Hillary neared the end of her tenure as Secretary of State, the National Archives and Records Administration took a second shot a preserving her email record.  Officials from the National Archive were in communication with the State Department discussing a plan on how they were going to go about obtaining a copy of the Secretary’s email record, so that they could be preserved in the archive.  The evolution of preserving the former Secretary’s email records never came to fruition.
And nearly two years after Hillary Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State ended, on October 28, 2014, the State Department finally requested that Hillary turn over her email records pertaining to her time served as Secretary of State.  However, this request came only after facing legal action, against the State Department, for failing to respond to a number of FOIA request.

Not intending to suggest any lack of culpability on the part of Hillary Clinton but it seems as though the major cuprite in this email scandal is actually the State Department.  Judging from the department’s willingness to ignore countless FOIA requests and demands from congressional oversight for documents pertaining to Benghazi, the State Department has been less than forthcoming with the fact that they never possessed the Clinton record nor is there any indication that they ever attempted to collect the record prior to the October 2014 request to which Hillary Clinton complied. 

This also raises the question as to whose idea it was to turn over hard copies of the email record rather than electronic copies.  Providing electronic copies of her emails would have been a simpler evolution.  As well, electronic copies of her mails it would have made the efforts to “key word” search documents much simpler.  Keyword searches of Hillary’s emails is now a manual and incredibly timely process.  Just imagine the effort it would take to search through 50,000 pages of email document to weed out a particular key word or phrase.  The difficulty created by providing hard copies of the record seems almost intentional and falls in line with the past history of the State Departments efforts to make compliance to requests of the former Secretary’s records as difficult as humanly possible.

We should also keep in mind that this obstructionist behavior of the State Department continued on after the changing of the guard.  Secretary of State John Kerry is fully aware of the accusations of feet dragging and obstructionism made against his State Department, in regards to the Clinton emails, and has done absolutely nothing to remedy the situation.

It still remains uncertain as to why Hillary Clinton chose to operate her own private email system but it certainly was not done without the knowledge and consent of the State Department.  This is not to suggest some type of grand conspiracy exists and certainly there is no link to the private server and Benghazi other than the existence of the server may have providing both Hillary and the State Department the ability to keep the Secretary’s record of the Benghazi incident out of public record. 

All this begs that question, “Has Hillary Clinton become the media’s sacrificial lamb?” 

Has the purpose which prompted Hillary to install a private email system grown in to something much more sinister?  Has the main stream media thrown Hillary under the bus in order to keep a lid on the greater failures from within the State Department?  It was in fact the media who originally named Hillary’s email woes the “Clinton” Email Scandal.  But as we learn more, it is clear that the State Department is deeply entrenched in whatever has and is going on with Hillary’s emails making it seem more fitting to be calling this mess the “State Department Email Scandal”.

The Hillary Clinton Email Scandal Will Put to Test the Morals and Ethics of the Democratic Voter

There is a great deal that we do not nor likely will ever know about the emails Hillary Clinton stored on her private email server during her tenure as Secretary of State however, there are a number of things that we do know for certain about the email scandal.  Let’s review.

We know for certain that, at her own public admission, Hillary Clinton chose to opt out of using a government email account and instead purposely used her own private email server, a Clinton owned domain and a personal email account to which she claims to have conducted all of her email correspondence on while serving as Secretary of State.  We know that this decision was deliberate as she had the email account set up just days before her Secretary of State Confirmation hearing began.  

We also know for certain, and again at her own public admission, that Hillary Clinton consciously and deliberately chose to retain sole custody of the contents on her private email server after her departure from the State Department.

Most troubling, we know for certain that while an endless stream of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests and congressional oversight requests for Hillary Clinton’s emails were being made, some even while she was still serving as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton stood by silently, knowing that she held the full record of what was being requested in her basement yet never released them.  She held her silence even knowing that subpoenas were issued for her emails.

What we don’t know for certain is exactly what it was that finally drove Hillary Clinton to provide the State Department with her emails, two years after the fact.  It is reasonable to assume however, that someone within the State Department who was under pressure to turn over Clinton emails to the various agencies requesting them, compelled Hillary to do so.

And we do know for certain that the emails Hillary Clinton turned over to the State Department were handpicked, by herself, and then scrutinized by her team of lawyers before the hard copies were boxed up and delivered to the State Department.  What we don’t, or at least we didn’t know at the time, was if what was turned over to the State Department was a full record of her time served as Secretary of State.

We know for certain that the request from congress for Hillary to turn over her private email server to a third party arbitrator was denied.  At the same time this request was denied it was also disclosed {claimed} that they {the Clinton’s} had the email server’s hard drive “scrubbed” of its contents following the retrieval of the some 50,000 printed pages of emails which were subsequently turned over to the State Department.

And while Hillary Clinton has repeatedly claimed that the hard copy of her emails were the full record of her time served as Secretary of State which existed on her private email server, we know for certain that this is an untruth.  On at least two occasions since the handpicked set of email document were turned over to the State Department, additional email documents, belonging to the former Secretary, have surfaced that were not part of the record she turned over to the State Department.

Now Let’s Summarize!

Hillary Clinton created a personal email system of which she had sole custody of, to be used to conduct the people’s business on while serving as Secretary of State. 

While still in office and during the early stages of the Benghazi investigations Hillary was fully aware of the requests being made to the State Department for her emails yet played ignorant and did not turn them over.

Upon her departure from the State Department Hillary made the conscious decision to withhold all of her email records and for the following two years again played ignorant to the well-publicized news reports {and I’m sure we was being briefed on this matter from the inside} of the State Department failing to turn over documents pertaining to her service as Secretary of State.

Two years after her term ended as Secretary of State and only after coming under pressure from the State Department did Hillary Clinton turn over a handpicked selection of her Secretary of State emails and turn them over to the State Department.

As a result of the Clinton emails being turned over to the State Department, who then were able to respond to at least some of the FOIA requests, it was first discovered that Hillary was using a private email account; that she stored those emails on a private email server of which was under her sole care and custody; and that she had been withholding her emails all this time.

And finally, we have learned that the 50,000 hard copy pages of emails that Hillary Clinton turned over to the State Department in fact is not the full record of her time served as Secretary of State, such as she has claimed them to be a numerous occasions.

 

In a nut shell, the former Secretary of State and now 2016 Democratic hopeful has proven that she can willfully and intentionally hide the people’s records from the people and ignore legal subpoenas.  She has also proven that she is willing to lie to the people, as she did when she claimed that she had turned over all of her email records from her service as Secretary of State.  She only did so two years after the fact and only because she was compelled to do so.

The time and money that has been wasted in congressional oversight due to the obstructions created by Hillary Clinton intentionally hiding the people’s emails from the people is shameful, not to mention the division between the parties it has caused.  But aside from all that, what Hillary Clinton has done is created a moral and ethical issue that each Democratic voter must look square in the face and decided which direction their compass points.

Democrats – Please Answer This One Simple Question

I have just one question for all the Democrats out there and please answer honestly.  It’s a Yes or No question and your answer requires no explanation or validation so this won’t take but a second of your time.  Okay, here is the question!


Are you okay with the fact that Hillary Clinton was never going to turn over any of her emails to the State Department after her departure as Secretary of State?



Let’s forget about the fact that the emails Hillary did eventually turn over were hand-picked by herself and then scrutinized by her team of lawyers before being boxed up and delivered State Department, making it impossible to know if they are a complete record of her time served as Secretary of State.

And let’s not think about the fact that the only reason Hillary turned over these emails was due to the pressure she was receiving from the State Department of which was also being pressured to produce Benghazi related documents of hers.

Also try to block from your mind that Hillary remained silent on the fact that she had sole possession of her emails while she saw one congressional oversight committee after another chastise the State Department for not making available her emails, while she learned of countless FOIA requests for her emails and while she stood and watched the State Department ignore subpoenas for her emails.

And please don’t think about the fact that we did not learn of Hillary’s unprecedented email arrangement with herself {as Trey Gowdy so eloquently put it} until after the Associated Press discovered and revealed the story behind the private Clinton email server earlier this year.  As well, try and pretend you are unaware of the fact the Hillary had since had the email server scrubbed of information and has refused to turn it over to in independent third party for forensic analysis.

Just ignore for a moment that all these troubling issues exist and stick with the fundamental yes or no question of if you are okay with the fact that Hillary Clinton was never going to turn over any of her emails to the State Department after her departure as Secretary of State?

Thanks for your time.

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.