Democrats Release Transcript Of Cheryl Mills' Testimony Before House Benghazi Committee 

Democrats Release Cheryl Mills' Testimony Before The Select House Committee On Benghazi. Democrats on the House Select Committee on Benghazi released a transcript October 21 of the September 3 testimony of Cheryl Mills, Hillary Clinton's former chief-of-staff at the State Department. According to Bloomberg, Mills “denied that she or Clinton tried to influence [the] conclusions” of the independent Accountability Review Board (ARB) investigation into the State Department's handling of the Benghazi attacks, Mills acknowledged that she read a draft of the ARB report before publication and suggested edits." From Bloomberg's report:

Just a day before Hillary Clinton's much-anticipated appearance before the House Select Committee on Benghazi, Democrats on the committee released a transcript of the Sept. 3testimony of Cheryl Mills, Clinton's chief of staff during her time as secretary of state. 

[...]

During her testimony, Mills also denied claims by former State Department staffer Ray Maxwell that Clinton aides “were part of an operation to 'separate' damaging documents before they were turned over to the Accountability Review Board investigating security lapses surrounding the Sept. 11, 2012, terrorist attacks,” according to his interview with the conservative Daily Signal website, and that Mills ran into him at a weekend session of the operation and questioned his presence. “I never had an encounter with Ray Maxwell around Benghazi,” she said.

Mills also spoke about Admiral Mike Mullen, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs who served as vice chairman of the ARB. He at one point called Mills to tell her that one witness scheduled to go before a congressional investigation would not “reflect well on the Department,” according to questions. Mills said she didn't remember the call but “had no reason to believe that” Mullen was wrong and believed his reservations might have had to do with the witness's ability to give accurate or clear testimony. While she denied that she or Clinton tried to influence its conclusions, Mills acknowledged that she read a draft of the ARB report before publication and suggested edits. “I certainly made recommendations for places where I thought there were inaccuracies or misstatements,” she testified. [Bloomberg, 10/21/15]

Right-Wing Media Scandalize Mills' Testimony In An Attempt To Discredit Accountability Review Board's Findings 

Washington Free Beacon: Cheryl Mill's Testimony Revealed “Efforts To Influence The Conclusions” Of The ARB's State DepartmentInvestigation. In an October 22 article, The Washington Free Beacon claimed that Mills' testimony revealed “efforts to influence the conclusions” of the Accountability Review Board's State Department investigation, citing testimony by Mills that she had contact with the review board: 

As Hillary Clinton prepares to testify before the House Benghazi on Thursday, newly released testimony from a senior Clinton aide reveals efforts to influence the conclusions an independent board that earlier investigated the State Department's handling of the 2012 attack.

Republicans and others have previously questioned the independence of the review board, noting that its leadership was reporting on details of the investigation to senior State Department officials during the course of the probe.

Clinton's chief of staff Cheryl Mills told the House Benghazi Committee in September that she was in contact with the review board regarding witness selection and decisions about what to include in its final report, according to testimony released on Wednesday.

“As they were preparing their report, they reached out to say, 'We have a draft of the report,'” Mills told the committee. “They shared that draft with me. I shared back my observations of instances where there were issues or facts that I thought were relevant for their consideration. They took them, or they didn't. Ultimately, they had to make that judgment.” [Washington Free Beacon, 10/22/15]

Fox's Steve Doocy: Cheryl Mills “Edited” And “Changed” Words and Meanings In The ARB Report To Exonerate Clinton. On the October 22 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, co-host Steve Doocy claimed that Cheryl Mills, Hillary Clinton's former State Department chief-of-staff, edited the report of findings from the Accountability Review Board investigation, saying Mills “edited it, changed words, changed meanings” to exonerate Clinton:

STEVE DOOCY: Remember, she commissioned the State Department to do this ARB, this Accountability Review Board, with Pickering and Admiral Mullen. Keep in mind, she picked them. It was not a serious investigation. They never talked to her. They never talked to anybody that might contradict the administration's point of view. When they were done, Admiral Mike Mullen gave Cheryl Mills a draft copy of his report and said, go ahead, edit it. And Cheryl Mills, Hillary Clinton's chief of staff, edited it, changed words, changed meanings. She, Hillary Clinton, is going to cling to it and say, look, I was exonerated. [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 10/22/15] 

State Department IG Report, Sworn Testimony Disproves Claim That Mills “Edited” ARB Report

Ambassador Thomas Pickering: The Review Board Was Not “According Editing Rights” To Cheryl Mills. While testifying before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform in June, 2013, Ambassador Thomas Pickering, chairman of the ARB, addressed the concerns about the independence of the review board by noting that only the “findings and recommendations, not the entire report” was shared with Mills, and further stating, “It was very clear that we were responsible for the draft; that we were not according editing rights” (emphasis added):

Q Maybe you said it this morning, but do you know who at the State Department had a chance to review the draft before it went final? 

A No. It went to the Secretary's chief of staff, but I don't know beyond that. 

Q And when -- 

A And it was, to the best of my knowledge and belief, the findings and recommendations, not the entire report. 

Q Not the report?  

A And it was a draft at a somewhat early stage. 

Q Was that the only draft that was shared?  

A I'm not sure, but I believe it was, yeah. This was done staff to staff.  

Q Okay. And that was with Cheryl Mills?  

A Yes.  

Q And you subsequently had an in-person meeting with her to discuss some of that?  

A No. We had only the meeting with the Secretary, which she attended, and there was no discussion of that issue at the meeting which the Secretary attended.  

Q So to the extent the feedback was communicated, was that staff to staff, or was that -- 

A Staff to staff. 

Q Okay. 

A But it was very clear that we were responsible for the draft; that we were not according editing rights, but we were certainly willing to look at concerns and issues, particularly if they help us to sharpen the accuracy and the focus of our recommendations. [House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Deposition of Ambassador Thomas Pickering, 6/4/13]

State Department IG Report: There Were “No Attempts To Impede, Influence, Or Interfere” With The Work Of The ARB. The State Department Inspector General released a report on the ARB process and stated that the Office of Inspections was told the ARB members “encountered no attempts to impede, influence, or interfere with their work” (emphasis original): 

Accountability Review Board Impartiality 

ARB members were conscious of the need to protect their impartiality by limiting their contact with senior managers of the Department during the process. Former members unanimously told OIG team that they encountered no attempts to impede, influence, or interfere with their work at any time or on any level. [Special Review of the Accountability Review Board Process, September 2013]

Mills' Testimony Makes Clear She Did Not Edit ARB Findings. In Mills' September 3 testimony before the House Benghazi Committee, she explained that she “made recommendations for places where I thought there were inaccuracies or misstatements or other information that might not be fully reflective,” but ultimately the ARB “made their own judgment” in finalizing their report:

Ms. Mills: Okay. I reviewed it, and I identified areas where I either saw that there was, from my perspective, based on where I was sitting, information that wasn't present, information that might be different, or other factors that I thought were relevant for their consideration in deciding what went in the document. And they then  made their own judgment.

[...] 

Mr. Jordan: So you suggested changes? 

Ms. Mills: I certainly made recommendations for places where I thought there were inaccuracies or misstatements or other information that might not be fully reflective of what the information was that was there. I certainly made those, yes.

Mr. Jordan: You reviewed it and you recommended changes. It  was up to them whether they implemented the changes or included them in the --

Ms. Mills: Yes. Recommended changes or flagged areas where I thought there might be inaccuracies.

Mr. Jordan:  Change this, delete that, that kind of -- that kind--

Ms. Mills: No.

[...]

Mr. Jordan: You recommended changes. Then what happened? Did  they do it or not?

Ms. Mills: So some they took probably, and some they didn't. My impression is that --

Mr. Jordan: Why is there a “probably” there? I mean, the final  report --you didn't look at the final report? The Secretary looked  at it.

Ms. Mills: I did look at the final report, but what I didn't have  is an errata sheet and say, “Oh, that's not there. Oh, that is there.”  I didn't do that, so that's why I don't have a frame of reference. [Select Committee On Benghazi, 10/21/15]