Return to Answer

It's true that there was a period in 2011-13 when Clinton's State Department debated whether Boko Haram should be classified as a direct threat to the US, while the government fighting Boko Haram in Nigeria warned that doing so would aid their fundraising and status. They chose not to until 2013, but during this time, under Clinton and with Clinton's approval, they did classify Boko Haram's leaders as international terrorists (2012).

Untrue and misleading, since their leaders were classified as international terrorists in 2012 under Clinton. It mixes up two things:

• Recognition of terrorism, and formal designation of FTO status, which for a foreign terrorist group essentially means flattering them with an official recognition that they're a threat to the US
• Boko Haram's current status ("Islamic State affiliate Boko Haram... deadliest terrorist organization in 2015"), and how they were in 2011-2013 (a brutal but largely localised insurgency)

Misleading - mixing up real recommendations that Boko Haram could be so designated and that this should be investigated, with the idea that they should be immediately designated despite warnings from Nigeria that doing so would benefit them.

There's also no evidence that Hillary Clinton personally hindered anyone's efforts on this. Boko Haram's status was being investigated and hotly debated in the State Department, and the evidence suggests the policy Clinton sanctioned was the one her staff ultimately decided best reflected the fact that Boko Haram could be considered an FTO but might benefit from the prestige of such a classification.

It's true that there was a period in 2011-13 when Clinton's State Department debated whether Boko Haram should be classified as a direct threat to the US, while the government fighting Boko Haram in Nigeria warned that doing so would aid their fundraising and status. They chose not to until 2013, but, in 2012 under Clinton and with Clinton's approval, they did classify Boko Haram's leaders as international terrorists.

Highly misleading, it misrepresents three things:

• General acknowledgement of terrorism and recognition as "a terrorist group" is conflated with formal designation of FTO status. For a localised regional group (like Boko Haram were at the time), the latter involves potentially flattering them with an official statement that they're a threat to the US or its interests.
• A state department decision agreed by relevant state department officials to do something across a time frame in a certain diplomatic way is misrepresented as a personal refusal by Hillary Clinton to do that thing at all, which also ignores the fact that she approved a major step towards it (designating Boko Haram's leaders).
• Boko Haram are talked about as if their current status ("Islamic State affiliate Boko Haram... deadliest terrorist organization in 2015") applied during the time period in question (2011 and 2012), which is false: at that time they were a brutal but largely localised insurgency with no links to ISIS.

Also misleading and in some places simply untrue:

• It misrepresents real recommendations that Boko Haram could be so designated as if these departments recommended they should be immediately designated despite warnings from Nigeria that doing so would benefit them.
• It talks as if Hillary Clinton was actively progress towards designation, when actually, the state department did begin the process of moving towards designation, and did go further towards it during Clinton's tenure than the Nigerians wanted.
• It claims the State Department opposed designation, which isn't true: they were in favour of bringing in designation in a measured way which didn't boost Boko Haram or undermine efforts to co-operate with and influence the Nigerians to take "a more serious approach to the threat".

This, and the "Boko Haram Terrorism Designation Act of 2012", are the main thrust of the "efforts of Members of Congress who were trying to make the designation" discussed in the question, but even they didn't outright call for Boko Haram to be immediately designated, they simply called for the State Department to consider doing so. That act of congress:

...would have directed the secretary of state to report to Congress on whether the group met the criteria for designation

This, and the "Boko Haram Terrorist Designation Act of 2012", are the main thrust of the "efforts of Members of Congress who were trying to make the designation" discussed in the question, but even they didn't outright call for Boko Haram to be immediately designated, they simply called for the State Department to consider doing so, and explain its decision. That act of congress called for:

(A) a detailed report on whether... [Boko Haram] ...meets the criteria for designation as a foreign terrorist organization...

(B) [if not] ...a detailed justification as to which criteria have not been met

A version of the bill became an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act, passed in December 2012, requiring the secretaries of state and defense to produce a classified report on the strategy for countering Boko Haram

No. It's true that there was a period in 2011-13 when Clinton's State Department debated whether Boko Haram should be classified as a direct threat to the US, while the government fighting Boko Haram in Nigeria warned that doing so would aid their fundraising and status. They chose not to until 2013, but during this time under Clinton, they did classify Boko Haram's leaders as international terrorists (2012).

The Justice Dept and others did advise around this time that Boko Haram could be considered a threat to the US. This isn't the same as recommending that it should be done and doesn't amount to contradicting the State Department's judgement as to what was the best strategic move for this time. The policy was led by State Department regional experts and there's no evidence Clinton was applying political pressure in either direction.

No, this is a twisting of the facts.

It's true that there was a period in 2011-13 when Clinton's State Department debated whether Boko Haram should be classified as a direct threat to the US, while the government fighting Boko Haram in Nigeria warned that doing so would aid their fundraising and status. They chose not to until 2013, but during this time, under Clinton and with Clinton's approval, they did classify Boko Haram's leaders as international terrorists (2012).

The Justice Dept and others did advise around this time that Boko Haram could be considered a threat to the US. This isn't the same as recommending that it should be done and doesn't amount to contradicting the State Department's judgement as to what was the best strategic move. The policy was led by State Department regional experts and there's no evidence Clinton was applying political pressure in either direction.