I believe it IS criminal on the part of Clinton since she had a legal responsibility to ensure all 15 sites that are rated "high" or "critical" be secure according to State Department standards. As I've posted elsewhere:
This needs to be kept front-of-mind with the DemocRat's talking points about anything regarding Benghazi:
Issues:
1) the State Department had the necessary budgetThere are only 15 facilities around the world rated "high" or "critical" - out of almost 300. The Benghazi site was rated "critical" (the highest threat) and needed H.R. Clinton's authorization to operate it while at the officially documented, legally deficient state of security , before the attack.
2) wanted Benghazi to become a permanent consulate
3) was 1 of only 15 sites out of 300 globally to be rated at the 2 highest levels, is legally required to conform to upgraded security standards, and the Secretary of State (Clinton) must sign off on operating at substandard levels
4) and MOST DAMNING – Clinton ignored multiple formal requests to bring it up to legal standards after multiple, serious security incidents
5) The false narrative of a protest based on a YouTube video caused irreparable harm to the newly elected Libyan leader and caused a delay of the FBI getting to the scene by 18 days or more
H.R. Clinton told Stevens, presumably ordered by Obama, that this admin's goal was to make Benghazi a permanent consulate. But, career state department employees were threatened, and demoted, for using official channels to make basic requests for security before the mid-term election.
By. Great post