Greg Hicks on Fox

Greg Hicks – the former deputy chief of mission for Libya turned whistleblower who was stationed in Tripoli at the time of the 9-11 terrorist attack in Benghazi appeared on Megyn Kelly’s show on Fox News to lay out the case that Mrs. Clinton should not be trusted with our national security, as evidenced by what transpired in Benghazi.  Ms. Kelly introduced Mr. Hicks by citing his compelling 2013 congressional testimony outlining the security lapses in Benghazi and the repeated calls for increased security that were ignored by then-secretary of state Hillary Clinton.

But Mr. Hicks was there not to discuss the lax security.  He wanted to explain, with two points, how Mrs. Clinton knowingly violated the law and is responsible for what happened in Benghazi, and therefore unqualified to be our commander-in-chief:   

[Mrs. Clinton] delegated her legal security obligations to others -- those obligations to protect official Americans overseas and especially in Benghazi. The law says that responsibility rests with the Secretary of State and what happened is our security complement in Tripoli was reduced from 34 to 6 so that when Chris Stephens went to Benghazi we could only let him take two security officers with him (sic) instead of the dozen or more he should have had.

Before he could state his second point, he was abruptly cut off as is customary with the cable news hostess.  After politely addressing her question, he deftly and succinctly made this second and more interesting point that nearly knocked me out of my chair:

[Mrs. Clinton] delegated the decision to divide our personnel in Benghazi between two facilities and that decision cannot be delegated according to the law.

Now, I follow the Benghazi case fairly closely, yet this is the first time I have heard this.  Perhaps such information is buried somewhere deep in the Benghazi Committee report; perhaps it is a portion of Mr. Hicks’s congressional testimony that has yet to be publicly aired.  Perhaps I have been living under a rock.  But had I been interviewing this courageous man and credible witness with a bird’s-eye view of the Benghazi story, I would have let him finish his comment, and then I would have followed up: what is the law he references?  What is the underlying policy reason that such decisions cannot be delegated?  Is this law common knowledge among diplomats and State Department officials, including the secretary of state?  Did he know if Mrs. Clinton was aware of this law, and how did he know this?  Were others stationed with him in Libya aware of this breach?  Did he believe that her decision impacted the massacre in Benghazi and if so, in what ways?  Did he believe there was a dereliction of duty by Mrs. Clinton in making this illegal delegation?  Has he, in his 25 years of diplomatic experience, ever seen a secretary of state delegate these duties before, and if so, under what circumstances?  I could go on.

Yet Ms. Kelly did not delve into his comment at all.

I am as fascinated with his statement and the reasons behind it as I am floored by Ms. Kelly’s failure to follow up.  As is so often the case with Fox talking heads, Ms. Kelly was so absorbed with her own viewpoint that she bypassed this novel information to state what she thought was the takeaway:

I think one of the things that gets lost is that this was a time when… there had been two bomb attacks on the consulate in the prior six months, the British and the Red Cross had both pulled out of Benghazi out of security concerns, Ambassador Chris Stephens had been begging for additional security which she did not provide and somehow the Clinton supporters have managed to turn this into you are some sort of conspiratorial hater if you want to talk about Benghazi.

These security issues have not been lost on anyone.  This is not the takeaway from Hicks’s interview.  It is common knowledge that there had been security lapses and pleas that were ignored, all of which would have made a difference that fateful night had they been duly addressed.  Ms. Kelly even attests to this fact in her introduction of Mr. Hicks.  Moreover, the fact that the vast left-wing conspiracy belittles any conversation about Benghazi and the people who discuss it is hardly news.

Mr. Hicks is as authentic as they come.  He hasn’t sought the limelight like some witnesses.  He went on Fox News not to state what we already know, but to lay the legal groundwork for the case that Clinton’s violation of standard operating procedures and laws that apply to the diplomatic corps for which she is wholly responsible nullifies any claim that she is competent to serve as this country’s 45th president.

What is interesting about Hicks’s comment is that not only does it point to her bungling incompetence as secretary of state, but it is yet another instance of Mrs. Clinton skirting the law and getting away with it.

What’s interesting about Megyn Kelly’s incompetence is that she was supposedly a litigator for nine years at one of the top law firms in the country.  Litigating is, to a great extent, about asking questions that prompt witnesses to speak freely and hopefully reveal useful and probative information.  In this case, the witness was forthcoming with something new to the public, yet there was no follow-up from one of Fox’s top news personalities an incisive reporter and experienced former litigator.

Greg Hicks – the former deputy chief of mission for Libya turned whistleblower who was stationed in Tripoli at the time of the 9-11 terrorist attack in Benghazi appeared on Megyn Kelly’s show on Fox News to lay out the case that Mrs. Clinton should not be trusted with our national security, as evidenced by what transpired in Benghazi.  Ms. Kelly introduced Mr. Hicks by citing his compelling 2013 congressional testimony outlining the security lapses in Benghazi and the repeated calls for increased security that were ignored by then-secretary of state Hillary Clinton.

But Mr. Hicks was there not to discuss the lax security.  He wanted to explain, with two points, how Mrs. Clinton knowingly violated the law and is responsible for what happened in Benghazi, and therefore unqualified to be our commander-in-chief:   

[Mrs. Clinton] delegated her legal security obligations to others -- those obligations to protect official Americans overseas and especially in Benghazi. The law says that responsibility rests with the Secretary of State and what happened is our security complement in Tripoli was reduced from 34 to 6 so that when Chris Stephens went to Benghazi we could only let him take two security officers with him (sic) instead of the dozen or more he should have had.

Before he could state his second point, he was abruptly cut off as is customary with the cable news hostess.  After politely addressing her question, he deftly and succinctly made this second and more interesting point that nearly knocked me out of my chair:

[Mrs. Clinton] delegated the decision to divide our personnel in Benghazi between two facilities and that decision cannot be delegated according to the law.

Now, I follow the Benghazi case fairly closely, yet this is the first time I have heard this.  Perhaps such information is buried somewhere deep in the Benghazi Committee report; perhaps it is a portion of Mr. Hicks’s congressional testimony that has yet to be publicly aired.  Perhaps I have been living under a rock.  But had I been interviewing this courageous man and credible witness with a bird’s-eye view of the Benghazi story, I would have let him finish his comment, and then I would have followed up: what is the law he references?  What is the underlying policy reason that such decisions cannot be delegated?  Is this law common knowledge among diplomats and State Department officials, including the secretary of state?  Did he know if Mrs. Clinton was aware of this law, and how did he know this?  Were others stationed with him in Libya aware of this breach?  Did he believe that her decision impacted the massacre in Benghazi and if so, in what ways?  Did he believe there was a dereliction of duty by Mrs. Clinton in making this illegal delegation?  Has he, in his 25 years of diplomatic experience, ever seen a secretary of state delegate these duties before, and if so, under what circumstances?  I could go on.

Yet Ms. Kelly did not delve into his comment at all.

I am as fascinated with his statement and the reasons behind it as I am floored by Ms. Kelly’s failure to follow up.  As is so often the case with Fox talking heads, Ms. Kelly was so absorbed with her own viewpoint that she bypassed this novel information to state what she thought was the takeaway:

I think one of the things that gets lost is that this was a time when… there had been two bomb attacks on the consulate in the prior six months, the British and the Red Cross had both pulled out of Benghazi out of security concerns, Ambassador Chris Stephens had been begging for additional security which she did not provide and somehow the Clinton supporters have managed to turn this into you are some sort of conspiratorial hater if you want to talk about Benghazi.

These security issues have not been lost on anyone.  This is not the takeaway from Hicks’s interview.  It is common knowledge that there had been security lapses and pleas that were ignored, all of which would have made a difference that fateful night had they been duly addressed.  Ms. Kelly even attests to this fact in her introduction of Mr. Hicks.  Moreover, the fact that the vast left-wing conspiracy belittles any conversation about Benghazi and the people who discuss it is hardly news.

Mr. Hicks is as authentic as they come.  He hasn’t sought the limelight like some witnesses.  He went on Fox News not to state what we already know, but to lay the legal groundwork for the case that Clinton’s violation of standard operating procedures and laws that apply to the diplomatic corps for which she is wholly responsible nullifies any claim that she is competent to serve as this country’s 45th president.

What is interesting about Hicks’s comment is that not only does it point to her bungling incompetence as secretary of state, but it is yet another instance of Mrs. Clinton skirting the law and getting away with it.

What’s interesting about Megyn Kelly’s incompetence is that she was supposedly a litigator for nine years at one of the top law firms in the country.  Litigating is, to a great extent, about asking questions that prompt witnesses to speak freely and hopefully reveal useful and probative information.  In this case, the witness was forthcoming with something new to the public, yet there was no follow-up from one of Fox’s top news personalities an incisive reporter and experienced former litigator.