The New York Times recently reported -- wrongly, as it turns out -- that Hillary Clinton was the subject of a "criminal" investigation for conducting official State Department business on her private email system. Many of the Times'sliberal readers were upset about the paper's handling of the Democratic frontrunner, and so, over the weekend, Times public editor Margaret Sullivan dragged out the sackcloth and ashes to explain the paper's coverage. Sullivan's column on the matter, however, contains a pretty remarkable characterization of the Times'sBenghazi coverage:
But I agree with this sentiment from a reader, Evan Hannay, who is troubled by some of the Clinton coverage: “Hillary deserves tough questions when they are warranted. But it is undeniable that she is already facing significantly tougher coverage than any other potential candidate.” He thinks The Times should make “a promise to readers going forward that Hillary is not going to be treated unfairly as she so often is by the media.”
Last Thursday, I handed Mr. Baquet a printed copy of Mr. Hannay’s email and asked him to address it.
To that end, he told me that he has urged reporters and editors to focus anew on issues stories. And he pledged fairness. “I’m happy to make a promise that she’ll be treated fairly,” he said, though he added, “If you look at our body of work, I don’t believe we have been unfair.” One testament to that, he said, was an investigative piece written by David Kirkpatrick shortly after the 2012 Benghazi attacks, with conclusions seen as favorable for Mrs. Clinton, who was then secretary of state. It came under heavy attack from the right.
The "investigative piece" linked by the Times didn't just come "under heavy attack from the right" because its conclusions were "favorable for Mrs. Clinton." It came under attack because it was decisively wrong. Here's the key sentence from Kirkpatrick's piece, which by the way, was not written "shortly after" the 2012 Benghazi attacks, but rather, more than a full year later:
Months of investigation by The New York Times, centered on extensive interviews with Libyans in Benghazi who had direct knowledge of the attack there and its context, turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault.
The Times'sincorrect pronouncement aside, this publication -- along with others -- published severalpiecespointing out the obviousconnectionsbetweenAl Qaeda and the Benghazi attacks. Despite overwhelming eveidence of al Qaeda's role in the attacks, the media used the claim that there was no connection to shut down Benghazi debate. In fact, the Times editorial board, citing Kirkpatrick's erroneous report, wrote the following in an attempt to discourage further Benghazi investigations and accused Republicans of attempting to derail Hillary's presidential ambitions:
In a rational world, [Kirkpatrick's report] would settle the dispute over Benghazi, which has further poisoned the poisonous political discourse in Washington and kept Republicans and Democrats from working cooperatively on myriad challenges, including how best to help Libyans stabilize their country and build a democracy. But Republicans long ago abandoned common sense and good judgment in pursuit of conspiracy-mongering and an obsessive effort to discredit President Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who may run for president in 2016.
Carly Fiorina accused Hillary Clinton having "blood on her hands" for her handling of the Benghazi terror attack that killed four Americans:
"Megyn, I think we now have enough information to understand that Hillary Clinton as secretary of state was engaged in gross dereliction of duty, she has engaged in cover-up. She has blood on her hands," the Republican candidate told Megyn Kelly of Fox News.
The The Republican National Committee is releasing a new video to argue that Democrat Hillary Clinton turn over the private email server she maintained while serving as secretary of state to an indpendent investigator. The web video showcases several reporters and members of the media excoriating Clinton's lack of transparency. Watch the video below:
On Monday, the Pentagon announced that Ali Ani al Harzi was killed in a U.S. airstrike in Mosul, Iraq. For those who have followed the public reporting on the September 11, 2012, Benghazi attack closely, al Harzi’s name will ring a bell. He was one of the first suspects to be publicly identified by name. Eli Lake, then of The Daily Beast, got the scoop in October 2012.
Among the emails released by the State Department today was one sent by Hillary Clinton to Jake Sullivan on April 8, 2011. Clinton was forwarding a private intelligence report that Sidney Blumenthal had sent her with the subject line: "UK game playing; new rebel strategists; Egypt moves in."
Hillary Clinton was forwarded an article a month after the terrorist attack on Benghazi that killed U.S. ambassador Chris Stevens that quoted Stevens's father. In the October 14, 2012, Bloomberg article, Jan Stevens, the late ambassador's father, was quoted saying that it would be "abhorrent" to make his son's death a political issue in the presidential campaign.
A small batch of newly released Hillary Clinton emails show that the then-secretary of state was exchanging sensitive information on her home brew server.
"The Times obtained about a third of the 850 pages of emails. They appear to back up Mrs. Clinton’s previous assertions that she did not receive classified information at her private email address," the New York Times reports.
Michael Morell wants you to know that he’s been misunderstood, mischaracterized, and maligned. Morell, the former deputy director of the CIA, was at the center of the controversy over the Benghazi attacks and the Obama administration’s attempts to sell the country a phony narrative about what had happened and why. He’s written a memoir of his time at the highest levels of U.S. intelligence, The Great War of Our Time: The CIA’s Fight Against Terrorism—From al Qa’ida to ISIS, and it includes two chapters on Benghazi.
President Obama strode to the lectern in the Rose Garden Thursday to announce a “historic” agreement between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran. The preliminary deal made in Lausanne, Switzerland, the president said, “cuts off every pathway Iran could take to develop a nuclear weapon.” I hope he’s right.
Stephen F. Hayes reported on Fox News that Hillary Clinton's top two aides, Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills, used personal emails while working for the secretary of state at the State Department:
"Two of Hillary Clinton's top aides used personal email while they were employed at the State Department, Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills. Hillary Clinton's chief of staff. The State Department has evidence of this.