Hillary Not Fit for President

Some facts speak for themselves. Res ipsa loquitur, as judges and lawyers say.

A recent factual trifecta speaks volumes about Hillary Clinton. By the numbers: (1) the State Department Inspector General reported that she violated State Department policies under the Federal Records Act; (2) the FBI Director testified that she was “extremely careless in . . . handling of very sensitive, highly classified information”; and (3) the Attorney General evaded Congressman Jason Chaffetz’ question, “Is it legal or illegal to share classified information with somebody who doesn’t have a security clearance?” These facts speak for themselves.

The focus for American voters should not be on whether Hillary Clinton is prosecuted as a criminal, but on her proven record of disastrously bad leadership.

When asked about sharing classified information with somebody who doesn’t have a security clearance, the attorney general averred, “Certainly depending on how you view the statute, it could go any number of ways.” In so answering, the attorney general obviously was not referring to the leadership statute Congress enacted in 1997 that addresses “dissolute and immoral practices.” Ironically, this leadership statute was enacted after revelations that Bill Clinton engaged in “immoral and dissolute practices” in the White House with at least one young female intern, and then lied to American people about it.

In response to Bill Clinton’s leadership failures in the White House, Congress sent a clear message to the American troops by applying to the Army and Air Force for the first time what had been Article 1 of U.S. Naval Regulations since John Adams drafted and the Continental Congress approved the Rules for the Regulation of the Navy of the United Colonies of North America in November 1775: "The Commanders of all ships and vessels belonging to the thirteen united colonies, are strictly required to shew in themselves a good example of honor and virtue to their officers and men, and to be very vigilant in inspecting the behaviour of all such as are under them, and to discountenance and suppress all dissolute, immoral and disorderly practices; and also, such as are contrary to the rules of discipline and obedience, and to correct those who are guilty of the same according to the usage of the sea."

In 1997, Congress also presciently added a purpose statement at the end of its statutory reaffirmation of the John Adams leadership standard: “to promote and safeguard the morale, the physical well-being, and the general welfare of the officers and enlisted persons under their command or charge."

Contrast this statutory admonition about leaders safeguarding “physical well-being” of “persons under their command or charge,” with what happened in Benghazi on Hillary Clinton’s watch.

In 1997, the Senate Armed Services Committee explained why it was so important to set the bar higher for all military leaders in the aftermath of Bill Clinton’s sordid leadership failures: "This provision will not prevent an officer from shunning responsibility or accountability for an action or event. It does, however, establish a very clear standard by which Congress and the nation can measure officers of our military services. The committee holds military officers to a higher standard than other members of society. The nation entrusts its greatest resource, our young men and women, to our military officers. In return, the nation deserves complete integrity, moral courage, and the highest moral and ethical conduct."

When asked about Hillary Clinton’s refusal to cooperate with the State Department, the best Clinton’s surrogate was able to tell Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday was, “she’s going to [be] meeting with the Department of Justice and if there are any . . . questions, she can answer them.”

It was Bill Clinton who subsequently and scandalously met with the head of the Justice Department, days before Hillary’s meeting with the FBI.

We all now know the results of those meetings. But we will never know about Hillary Clinton’s meeting with the State Department Inspector General, because according to the May 23, 2016, State Department Office of Inspector General (OIG) Report, “In addition to Secretary Clinton, eight former Department employees declined OIG requests for interviews.” Res ipsa loquitur.

Unlike the attorney general, whose role is to make choices based on “prosecutorial discretion,” the fundamental role of an inspector general is to shed light on facts. Recall that for her entire four-year tenure as secretary of state, Hillary Clinton never had a Senate-confirmed inspector general. Res ipsa loquitur.

The American people are not stupid. More light needs to be shed on the leadership failures of the second Clinton who would be commander in chief: As secretary of state, Hillary Clinton failed by promoting the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt; she failed again in Syria; and her leadership failure in Libya left Ambassador Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods, and Glen Doherty dead.

Joseph E. Schmitz is a foreign policy and national security adviser to Donald Trump. He served as Inspector General of the Department of Defense from 2002-2005, and is now a partner in the law firm, Schmitz & Socarras LLP. Read more reports from Joseph E. Schmitz — Click Here Now.