Did Hillary Clinton face criminal charges related to Benghazi and what was the outcome?
Executive summary
Hillary Clinton was the focus of multiple investigations related to the 2012 Benghazi attacks, but she was never criminally charged for her role; independent probes, congressional reports and the State Department inspector general found security failings and procedural lapses but no evidence warranting criminal prosecution, and the FBI ultimately recommended no charges in related email matters [1] [2] [3].
1. The investigations launched and who conducted them
After the September 11, 2012, attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, the incident was investigated by the FBI, the State Department’s Office of Inspector General, and multiple Congressional committees including a high-profile House Select Committee; those probes examined factual timelines, security decisions and public statements in the aftermath [4] [2] [5].
2. What the official accountability reviews found about Clinton’s conduct
The State Department inspector general’s review concluded that the department had made errors — including security lapses and failures in process — and later said Clinton violated department procedures on using a private e‑mail system for official business, but explicitly found no evidence of criminal conduct by Clinton in connection with Benghazi [2].
3. The House Select Committee’s final judgment and partisan recalls
After a two‑year, $7 million inquiry that produced an 800‑page report, the House Select Committee faulted the military response but did not produce new evidence of criminal wrongdoing by Clinton; Republican members framed the probe as exposing political deception while Democratic members and several media outlets emphasized that the committee’s final report did not contradict prior findings that stopped short of criminal culpability [1] [6] [7].
4. The email controversy: overlap with Benghazi and legal outcomes
Investigations into Clinton’s use of a private e‑mail server initially surfaced during Benghazi-related scrutiny and expanded into a separate FBI counterintelligence probe about handling classified information; FBI Director James Comey concluded that although Clinton and her aides had been “extremely careless” with classified material, the bureau’s judgment was that “no reasonable prosecutor” would bring criminal charges, and the Justice Department closed the case without indictments [8] [2] [3].
5. Criminal charges against perpetrators, not Clinton
The criminal cases that did arise from Benghazi targeted alleged attackers in Libya — for example, U.S. authorities filed charges against militia leader Ahmed Abu Khattala and others involved in the assault — demonstrating that the federal criminal focus was on perpetrators, not senior U.S. officials such as Clinton [4].
6. The contested political narrative versus legal reality
Across right‑leaning commentary and some Republican lawmakers, Benghazi became a rallying cry alleging cover‑ups and culpability by Clinton; conservative commentators and committee members argued she misled the public, while other outlets and fact‑based reviews emphasized the lack of prosecutable evidence and the political nature of prolonged congressional focus, underscoring a dissonance between partisan narratives and the legal outcomes documented by investigators [9] [10] [11].
7. What remains settled and what reporting cannot establish
The publicly available official reports and the FBI’s conclusions establish that Clinton was not criminally charged in connection with Benghazi and that the State Department found procedural violations but no criminality; reporting in these sources does not provide any authority to assert facts beyond those documented by the IG, the FBI, and Congressional reports, nor does it substantiate claims that Clinton faced criminal prosecution related to the attacks [2] [3] [1].