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.

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.

12 Questions I Would Ask Hillary

If given the chance, these are the twelve questions I would love to ask Hillary Clinton:

1.   If elected president, would your economic policies be able to create as many new millionaires as your predecessor policies did?

 

2.   After losing the Democratic Presidential nomination to Barack Obama who subsequently went on to win the Presidency, what kind of a deal did he make with you to get you to join Team Obama and be his Secretary of State?

 

3.   If you had it to do over again, would you save you and our nation the embarrassment and double check to be sure that your aids spelt “Reset” in Russian correctly?

 

4.   In your former life as an attorney, if a senior White House staff member came to you inquiring as to if they should set-up an in home email server and conduct all their official correspondence using a personal email address, what advice would you give them?

 

5.   For westerners, many regions of the world have become a very dangerous place and as the POTUS and Commander in Chief, you would be required to travel inside many of these regions.  In doing so, do you have any concerns that this might bring back the terror you experience from the fictitious sniper fire you came under during her 1996 trip to Bosnia?

 

6.   You were amongst those that found their way to the situation room to witness the capture/killing of Osama bin Laden on the big screen TV however, during the 8 hour span of the attack on the US Consulate and CIA Annex in Benghazi, Libya, you failed to make the 1.5 mile trip from your Foggy Bottom office to the White House basement where the situation room, specifically designed and equipped as a command and control center for the management of foreign and domestic crisis, is located.  Is there a believable reason that you chose not to join the crisis management team in the situation room during the Benghazi attack or were you directed by a higher authority to remain at in your State Department office?
       

7.   If elected, would you denounce American Exceptionalism in the same manner as your predecessor has?

 

8.   During your eight years serving in the Senate you sponsored an astonishing 417 bills.  Where you shooting for some kind of Guinness record or something?

 

9.   Have you given any thought to a new domain name for the private email address you will use if elected president or will you simply resurrect the @clintonmail.com domain?

 

10. Was the live video feed, from the drone flying over the US Consulate and CIA Annex in Benghazi, as crisp and clean as the high definition imagery you have in your in-home entertainment studio?

11. Watergate was a very long time ago and most have forgotten the wrongdoings of Richard Nixon and his administration.  Could you please refresh our memories of the Watergate investigation, specifically what your old boss was referring to when he stated this about you: “She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.”?

And the question that just has to be asked …..
 

12.  If you are elected as President of the United States, will Bill have access to the White House interns?