Alleged U.S. State Department Misconduct and “Quid Pro Quo” To Protect Hillary Clinton Will Not Go Away — What difference, at this point, does it make?

Peace and Freedom 

What difference does it make that we now know that Undersecretary of State Patrick Kennedy asked the FBI to ease up on classification decisions in exchange for allowing more FBI agents in countries where they were not permitted to go?

What difference does it make that the words “quid pro quo” were used to describe the proposed exchange in document classification by the FBI official?

The quid pro quo offer was a kind of bribery — offered by a State Department official to the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

And what was so important that the document Undersecretary of State Patrick Kennedy wanted “Archived … in the basement of the department of state never to be seen again.”

Peace and Freedom has been told by reliable sources that the document concerns Benghazi.

And after all this time, why should some document about Benghazi matter?

What difference does it make?

Because four Americans lost their lives at Benghazi — unnecessarily.

Because Hillary Clinton and Undersecretary of State Patrick Kennedy were the people directly responsible for the security at the U.S. facility at Benghazi. And that despite the pleas for additional security at the Benghazi facility made by Ambassador Chris Stevens, who died on September 11, 2012 Hillary Clinton and Undersecretary of State Patrick Kennedy did not provide the additional security requested.

And that then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, with the assistance of Undersecretary of State Patrick Kennedy picked the people to investigate their own culpability in the matter  — The Accountability Review Board — which was headed by ARB Chairman Ambassador Thomas Pickering and Vice Chairman Admiral Michael Mullen — two men with close ties to then Secretary Clinton.

In the investigation done by the  Accountability Review Board, Hillary Clinton was never questioned.

When Congress refused to accept the findings of the Accountability Review Board and the House Oversight Committee looked into the matter it found that the ARB downplayed security decisions made by senior officials at the State Department, especially that of Under Secretary Patrick Kennedy, and instead blamed four subordinates who, in some cases, “had little to no” responsibility for the key events. In some cases, “the ARB correctly identified poor individual decisions while apparently failing to take into account decisions made by more senior [State] Department officials,” reads a draft of the report obtained by CBS News.

“Such senior-level decisions played an equal if not greater role in the vulnerability of the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi.”

So the next logical question that every American should ask is this: What was Hillary Clinton’s role, the and role of Undersecretary of State Patrick Kennedy, in the decision making  concerning the security for the Benghazi facility prior to the terrorist attack on September 11, 2012.

Because we know the security at Benghazi was inadequate because four Americans died their — including the U.S. Ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens.

Because there is reason to believe that Hillary Clinton and Under Secretary Patrick Kennedy may possibly bear some responsibility for the unnecessary death of four Americans who worked for them in the State Department chain of command.

And that lack of proper investigation and accountability is still tearing at the American people who no longer believe in the integrity and honesty of their U.S. government. Because Americans died unnecessarily. Because the U.S. government lied about their events surrounding their deaths. And because much of the investigation has been a “whitewash” meant to protect people in the Obama administration: including Hillary Clinton and  Under Secretary Patrick Kennedy.




“The ‘Quid Pro Quo’ on Hillary Clinton’s Emails,” by Russell Berman, The Atlantic, October 17, 2016

“Benghazi Accountability Review Board comes under renewed criticism,” by Sharyl Attkisson, September 19, 2013

Hillary Clinton — Then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, testifying before a congressional committee investigating the deaths of four Americans at Benghazi, Libya, on September 11, 2012. Reuters photo by Kevin LaMarque
I wish we could speak to Ambassador Chris Stevens, Glen Doherty, Tyrone Woods and Sean Smith who died in the September 11, 2012 attacks on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi,  Libya.
They would surely tell us: “Hillary Clinton did not have our back.”
That’s why they are dead.

Benghazi From left Glen Doherty, Tyrone Woods and Sean Smith died in the recent attacks on the U.S. Embassy in Libya.

Image: Hillary Rodham Clinton testifies on Capitol Hill in Washington on Jan. 23, 2013

Somebody must have told Hillary Rodham Clinton that her best defense on Benghazi was a good offense. She verbally attacked the Congressional lawmakers who have oversight over the U.S. Department of State — while she was Secretary of State.

Photo caption (Above) : Hillary Clinton testifies on Capitol Hill in Washington on Jan. 23, 2013, before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on the deadly September attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans. Pablo Martinez Monsivais / AP, file


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: