The FBI's recommendation that no charges be brought against Hillary Clinton for her handling of email as secretary of state is an important victory for the presumptive Democrat presidential nominee. However, this finding will not bring an end to Republican criticism of the investigation and of Clinton's lack of trustworthiness.
FBI Director James Comey said Tuesday that "no reasonable prosecutor" would bring a case against Clinton, but he noted that Clinton and her staff were "extremely careless" in their email use. Clinton had used a private email server located at her New York residence while she was secretary of state. A year ago the inspector general for intelligence agencies informed the Justice Department that he had found classified information among emails Clinton had sent and received. Comey said today that a small number were found to be marked classified at the time they were sent, and such information is not to be sent on an unclassified system.
The House Select Committee on Benghazi discovered that Clinton was using a private server in their investigation of the attack on an American outpost that resulted in the deaths of four Americans. Subsequently, Clinton agreed to turn over 30,000 emails from her tenure as secretary of state. She did not turn over those she deemed as personal. Ultimately, government agencies determined that several hundred should have been marked classified, including a couple dozen that should have been designated top secret. In his statement, Comey also said, "We found no additional evidence that any of the additional work-related emails were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them."
Clinton's handling of emails has been used by her critics as further evidence that she is not trustworthy. The FBI's recommendation will now go to the Justice Department for final action. It is unlikely that the Justice Department will bring charges. But questions have been raised about the department's independence following President Bill Clinton's awkward meeting last week with Attorney General Loretta Lynch, who subsequently said she would accept the recommendation of the FBI.
Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump wasted no time to express his reaction on Twitter. "The system is rigged. General Patraeus got in trouble for far less. Very very unfair! As usual, bad judgment," he tweeted. Moments later he wrote on Twitter, "FBI director said crooked Hillary compromised our national security. No charges. Wow! #RiggedSystem." It is clear that Trump and Republicans will use this finding as an example of the Clintons getting special treatment, and they will continue to attack her on the issue.
Clinton supporters welcomed the findings. Virginia Senator Tim Kaine told CNN, "I never believed that this was going to be something in the criminal realm or even close to it." Nonetheless, the FBI finding that Clinton was extremely careless in her email is very damning. And Clinton has mishandled the email probe from the very beginning, saying on several occasions that, "I am confident that I never sent or received any information that was classified at the time it was sent and received." The FBI finding is that she should have known.
The cloud of controversy surrounding Clinton's email use at the State Department will continue to hang over her campaign for the White House. She has yet to offer a credible explanation for using a private server while she was secretary of state. Later this month Democrats will nominate her as their candidate for president. But, because of her "mistake," as she now calls it, her lack of judgment and trustworthiness will continue to be questioned by Clinton opponents.
Showing posts with label State Department. Show all posts
Showing posts with label State Department. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 5, 2016
Saturday, May 11, 2013
Benghazi Politics
Republicans are obsessed with last September's attack by terrorists on the U.S. diplomatic outpost in Benghazi, Libya, that left four Americans dead, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens. So rabid are their efforts to uncover a scandal that some in the party are throwing the word impeachment around.
An independent inquiry, headed by former Deputy Secretary of State Thomas Pickering and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen, released a damning report last December. It found that "systematic failures and leadership and management deficiencies" within the State Department resulted in a "security posture that was inadequate for Benghazi and grossly inadequate to deal with the attack that took place." Then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton took full responsibility in a Congressional hearing in January.
Instead of focusing on what is being done to capture the perpetrators and what measures are being put in place to assure it doesn't happen again, tragically Republicans are zeroing in on a misleading set of administration talking points used by officials to explain the attack. The State Department's top spokeswoman at the time, Victoria Nuland, objected to including the CIA's reference in an early draft to intelligence about the threat from al Qaeda in Benghazi. ABC News reported that one of her emails said it "could be abused by members (of Congress) to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings, so why would we want to feed that either? Concerned."
With the Presidential Election a few weeks away last fall, Republicans believe that the administration did not want to say anything that would undermine President Barack Obama's claims that Al Qaeda was defeated. Instead, they believe the talking points were intentionally "scrubbed" of references to Al Qaeda. And they cite as further proof the statements made by America's U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice on the Sunday talks shows that the attack was in response to an anti-Islamic film that had fueled violent anti-American demonstrations at the same time in twenty countries, including Egypt and Tunisia.
Were her statements, which came from the talking points, a deliberate attempt to mislead the American people? Reuters reported that, "A source familiar with the Benghazi communications said Nuland was concerned the talking points went further than what she was allowed to say during her briefings and that 'the CIA was attempting to exonerate itself at the State Department's expense.'" In other words, this was a skirmish between two government agencies over who would be blamed.
In Wednesday's Congressional hearing, chaired by Republican Representative Darrell Issa, three witnesses spoke at length about the incident. The then number two official in America's Tripoli Embassy, Gregory Hicks, said he was stunned when he heard Rice's account. He claimed that he was later demoted for raising questions about how the incident was handled by the State Department. That charge was denied by the State Department, which said he was reassigned with no reduction in pay. Nonetheless, Hicks was not prohibited from speaking to Congress.
There were 64 attacks on American diplomatic targets during President George W. Bush's administration. American diplomatic facilities have been targets of anti-American sentiment for decades. In spite of that, Congress has been reducing diplomatic security budgets in recent years.
Sadly, four Americans died in the attack at Benghazi. In their memory, and for the sake of all those who serve our country overseas, Congress should now focus its attention on how to better protect our outposts instead of trying to score political points.
.
An independent inquiry, headed by former Deputy Secretary of State Thomas Pickering and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen, released a damning report last December. It found that "systematic failures and leadership and management deficiencies" within the State Department resulted in a "security posture that was inadequate for Benghazi and grossly inadequate to deal with the attack that took place." Then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton took full responsibility in a Congressional hearing in January.
Instead of focusing on what is being done to capture the perpetrators and what measures are being put in place to assure it doesn't happen again, tragically Republicans are zeroing in on a misleading set of administration talking points used by officials to explain the attack. The State Department's top spokeswoman at the time, Victoria Nuland, objected to including the CIA's reference in an early draft to intelligence about the threat from al Qaeda in Benghazi. ABC News reported that one of her emails said it "could be abused by members (of Congress) to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings, so why would we want to feed that either? Concerned."
With the Presidential Election a few weeks away last fall, Republicans believe that the administration did not want to say anything that would undermine President Barack Obama's claims that Al Qaeda was defeated. Instead, they believe the talking points were intentionally "scrubbed" of references to Al Qaeda. And they cite as further proof the statements made by America's U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice on the Sunday talks shows that the attack was in response to an anti-Islamic film that had fueled violent anti-American demonstrations at the same time in twenty countries, including Egypt and Tunisia.
Were her statements, which came from the talking points, a deliberate attempt to mislead the American people? Reuters reported that, "A source familiar with the Benghazi communications said Nuland was concerned the talking points went further than what she was allowed to say during her briefings and that 'the CIA was attempting to exonerate itself at the State Department's expense.'" In other words, this was a skirmish between two government agencies over who would be blamed.
In Wednesday's Congressional hearing, chaired by Republican Representative Darrell Issa, three witnesses spoke at length about the incident. The then number two official in America's Tripoli Embassy, Gregory Hicks, said he was stunned when he heard Rice's account. He claimed that he was later demoted for raising questions about how the incident was handled by the State Department. That charge was denied by the State Department, which said he was reassigned with no reduction in pay. Nonetheless, Hicks was not prohibited from speaking to Congress.
There were 64 attacks on American diplomatic targets during President George W. Bush's administration. American diplomatic facilities have been targets of anti-American sentiment for decades. In spite of that, Congress has been reducing diplomatic security budgets in recent years.
Sadly, four Americans died in the attack at Benghazi. In their memory, and for the sake of all those who serve our country overseas, Congress should now focus its attention on how to better protect our outposts instead of trying to score political points.
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)