The Hillary Cover-Up

“What did the president know and when did he know it?”  That was the central question confronting the Watergate Committee.  The answer was that Nixon did not know about the Watergate break-in until after the fact, but then he participated in the cover-up.

The question today should be “What did Hillary Rodham Clinton know and when did she know it?”  The answer to this, however, is now known.  She was aware that the assault on the American Consulate in Benghazi was a terrorist attack even as the violence was being perpetrated.

How do we know?  Well, we have a “smoking gun.”  With Nixon we had his tapes.  With Hillary we have cables and emails.  Hillary plainly told her daughter and Arab officials that an Al Qaeda affiliate—and not a video—had triggered the premeditated strike that killed our ambassador and three others.

So what was the former Secretary of State’s response to being caught with her pants down?  It was outright denial.  Now she tells us that there was confusion and hence she could not be sure.  She also says that she still believes the video had “something” to do with the attack.

Why then didn’t she say so at the time?  She could have declared, “We don’t know what happened.”  Or argued, “There were many factors, including a video.”   But no, the cause—the entire cause—was attributed to an insulting movie.  Indeed, she stuck with this story for weeks and never corrected those, such as ambassador Rice, who over-stated the case.

This was cover-up: period.  So what was the difference between her and Nixon?  First, she is a better liar.  Nixon could not help sweating when he insisted that he was not a crook.  Hillary was much smoother in her delivery.

Second, the Republicans refused to provide Nixon a defense.  They too participated in the Watergate Committee and it was a Republican who asked—and demanded an answer to —the fateful question.  Contemporary Democrats are far more concerned with defending Hillary than with discovering the truth.

Third, the mainstream media engaged in honest-to-God investigative reporting with Nixon.  With Hillary reporters and editors did not have to be told to “move on.”  They did so in their own.  Their attitude was, “No smoking gun here.  Just us chickens.”

Then there was the dog that did not bark in the night.  Part of the problem lies in what Hillary did not do.  She did not order additional protection for ambassador Stevens or his staff.  According to her testimony, she had been briefed on the dangers, but now blamed the security professionals for not doing their job.

Hillary essentially argued that protecting the consulate was below her pay grade.  And, oh by the way, Chris Stevens was a big boy who understood that he was placing his life in jeopardy.

Hillary also says that she accepts responsibility for what happened.  But when you accept responsibility doesn’t that mean that you accept some of the blame?  Shouldn’t she have intervened when she realized that security was lax and the dangers great?

A president of General Motors who said that he did not know about an ignition problem in millions of cars would not be granted immunity.  If he proclaimed, “I did not know,” we would say, you should have known.  That was your job!

Wasn’t it Hillary’s?  Why then was she derelict in her duty?  We know the reasons for the cover-up.  She was protecting Obama’s presidential campaign and her personal reputation.  Currently, of course, she is protecting her own campaign.

As for the lack of consulate protection, her mind seems to have been elsewhere.  The Libya intervention was falling apart, so perhaps she was looking for glory further afield.

But the biggest mystery is why so many liberals continue to defend Hillary.  Do they expect someone who is this dishonest—this irresponsible—will do a better job than Obama?  Or will a Clinton presidency further discredit the progressive agenda?

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University