Witch Hunt

This week Hillary Clinton appears before the special committee investigating the Benghazi incident. You remember, the incident in which (witch?) Hillary Clinton, then Secretary of State, and Barack Obama, among many in the administration falsely claimed that a terrorist attack was not a terrorist attack but instead a bad movie review. This mendacious claim continued for almost two weeks and occurred at a pivotal point in the 2012 presidential election, but that's the very least of it—as we will see in a few paragraphs.

After a stupendously stupid statement by House Majority Leader, Kevin McCarthy, in which he implied that the committee was formed to ruin Hillary's poll numbers, the meme adapted by Clinton and the Democrats has been "Witch Hunt!" It will continue all week.

Every activity that occurs in Washington is political, so the Dems disingenuous meme is laughable, but for just a moment, let's assume that the committee was formed for political motives. In fact, let's assume that it is a "Witch Hunt."

That is no way obviates a series of critically important questions that need to be answered. In an earlier post, I noted three legitimate areas of investigation and the question associated with them:

Point (1). There is clear and irrefutable evidence that proper security precautions were not taken in Benghazi, even though they were requested by people on the ground. Even worse, there were limited resources available to protect the Ambassador Stevens even after serious reports of a pending attack were offered to State Department personnel. Who is responsible for these failures? Why were security resources withheld? Who approved withholding them?


Point (2). Americans were under deadly, coordinated fire for over eight hours. There is clear and irrefutable evidence that military resources were available to intercede, but were not used. Airpower was available, but was not used. Some on the ground claim that an order to "stand down" was issued, but because the administration and DoD stonewalled any legitimate investigation, that's hard to determine whether this is true. While the fighting continued, we were told that there was "not enough time" or that it was "impractical" to intercede. But how could military personal have known how much time would be available, given that the attack was on-going when they claim that decision was made? How does "practicality" come into play when Americans are under attack? Who gave the order NOT to intercede? Did it come from the DoD, the State Department, the White House? Where was the president physically during the attack? Where was the Secretary of State? Did they participate in decision-making, and if so, how? What real-time communications traffic occurred between State, the White House, and the military in North Africa, Southern Europe and on the ground in Libya? Why did so many senior military officers retire or get reassigned after the Benghazi incident?


Point (3). The White House and State department knowingly lied about the causes of the attack, falsely attributing it to the infamous anti-Muslim video as causation and a random mob as perpetrators (instead of a known Islamic terrorist cell). Both claims were provably false and were known to be false within hours of the attack. Yet intelligence reports were doctored, administration spokespeople lied repeatedly, and the Secretary of State (Hillary Rodham Clinton) lied about causation and the perpetrators, not for hours or a few days, but for over a week. Why? Who decided to mislead the public? Who crafted the false narrative? Who approved it? How heavily did political concerns come into play?

The Dems and Hillary can play the victim all they want, but the actions that occurred before, during, and after the Benghazi attack have NOT been adequately investigated—until now. Why? Because every investigation, including this one, has been thwarted every step of the way by an administration that stonewalled every information request. Even worse, Democrat committee members are there not to determine the truth, but to protect their president and Clinton.

Over the past 17 months, this committee has worked quietly to get answers—long before Hillary's campaign started. We won't get all of the answers, but hopefully, we will get some.

Sometimes, when there's a Witch Hunt there really is a witch.

UPDATE (10/20/2015):
-----------------------------------
Steve Hayes comments on the 'witch hunt" meme and whether it will allow Hillary to dodge still another ethical (criminal?) bullet:

This [the "witch hunt" meme] is unfortunate. But it doesn’t erase months of mendacity from Clinton and her supporters. A CBS poll out last week found that 71 percent of registered voters think it was inappropriate for Clinton to use a private email server as secretary of state. Nearly 60 percent of those surveyed are not satisfied with Clinton’s explanation of the controversy. A Fox News poll from last week, taken after McCarthy’s comments and the public claims from the former Benghazi staffer, found that voters by a 2-to-1 margin believe Clinton has been dishonest about the emails, and nearly half of those surveyed believe the congressional investigation should continue. It will. And though Clinton has attacked the committee as an arm of the Republican National Committee, she says she will appear before the panel, under oath, on October 22.

Clinton’s problems don’t end with the committee. Her main challenges now come from two sources that she cannot credibly dismiss as partisan: the FBI and the contents of her own emails.

Consider:

- The FBI is expanding its investigation into the security of her server and the possible mishandling of classified materials.

- Last month, the FBI seized four servers from the State Department as part of its probe.

- A second tech company involved in providing security for Clinton’s emails, Datto, Inc., previously unknown to the public, agreed to cooperate with the FBI probe and will turn over its files to the bureau to assist with the investigation.

- Newly released internal emails from the first data company, Platte River, indicate that employees there believed there had been a “directive to cut the backup” of Clinton emails—that is, an order to reduce the amount of time the company would keep the Clinton data.

- An employee at Platte River also suggested a cover-up of some kind, writing to a colleague: “Starting to think this whole thing really is covering up some shaddy [sic] shit.”

Add to this the explosive information disclosed last week in a letter from Gowdy previewing the release of a new batch of Clinton emails. These are “new” emails only because the State Department initially refused to turn them over to the committee, saying they were beyond the jurisdiction of the Benghazi investigation.

It's very difficult to predict how all of this will work out. If the past is prologue, Hillary will skate. After all, she has the vast majority of the media behind her—a media that has steadfastly refused to investigate and expand upon information that has come to light.

Imagine for just a moment if a Secretary of State for a GOP administration, say, a John Bolton, had done exactly what Hillary did. Wall to wall investigations, breaking revelations, interviews with whistle blowers—every night—until Bolton was destroyed by the facts.

But Clinton is the candidate for president on the Democratic side. She is protected by the media, even if she is perceived as 'not left enough" for the trained hamsters and the Dem base.

There is one thing that just might keep Dems up at night. The FBI investigation. If it isn't corrupted by political pressure from the Obama administration (via the Justice Department), it just might lead to a criminal indictment. How's that for an image? It's mid 2016 and Hillary Clinton is running for president and then indicted on a felony charge. It's very, very unlikely, but it's not zero probability—and that, for Dems—is the stuff of nightmares.