House Benghazi Report Released

benghazi_victimsPosted by Tina

The House Select Committee report on Benghazi was released to the public by Trey Gowdy and his committee members today. Asked whether his report was an indictment of Hillary Clinton the chairmen said that he was asked to investigate what happened regarding the deaths of four Americans and that is what his committee set out to do and did. He urged everyone to read the report themselves and draw their own conclusions. He said his aim was to find the “who, what, when, and where” in the situation and that he wasn’t asked, or inclined, to ask “why.”

Our readers can find the full 800 page report here. Members of the committee made individual statements to the press which are also available at that link. You will find two of the statements highlighted below. The following facts are among the many new revelations in Part I:

Despite President Obama and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta’s clear orders to deploy military assets, nothing was sent to Benghazi, and nothing was en route to Libya at the time the last two Americans were killed almost 8 hours after the attacks began. [pg. 141]

With Ambassador Stevens missing, the White House convened a roughly two-hour meeting at 7:30 PM, which resulted in action items focused on a YouTube video, and others containing the phrases “[i]f any deployment is made,” and “Libya must agree to any deployment,” and “[w]ill not deploy until order comes to go to either Tripoli or Benghazi.” [pg. 115]

The Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff typically would have participated in the White House meeting, but did not attend because he went home to host a dinner party for foreign dignitaries. [pg. 107]

A Fleet Antiterrorism Security Team (FAST) sat on a plane in Rota, Spain, for three hours, and changed in and out of their uniforms four times. [pg. 154]

None of the relevant military forces met their required deployment timelines. [pg. 150]

The Libyan forces that evacuated Americans from the CIA Annex to the Benghazi airport was not affiliated with any of the militias the CIA or State Department had developed a relationship with during the prior 18 months. Instead, it was comprised of former Qadhafi loyalists who the U.S. had helped remove from power during the Libyan revolution. [pg. 144]

Rep. Mike Pompeo (KS-04) released the following statement regarding these findings:

“We expect our government to make every effort to save the lives of Americans who serve in harm’s way. That did not happen in Benghazi. Politics were put ahead of the lives of Americans, and while the administration had made excuses and blamed the challenges posed by time and distance, the truth is that they did not try.”

Rep. Martha Roby (AL-02) released the following statement regarding these findings:

“Our committee’s insistence on additional information about the military’s response to the Benghazi attacks was met with strong opposition from the Defense Department, and now we know why. Instead of attempting to hide deficiencies in our posture and performance, it’s my hope our report will help ensure we fix what went wrong so that a tragedy like this never happens again.”

Those who died serving our country in Libya will be remembered for their service, their bravery and their dedication. The report will become art of the permanent record whether or not the American people bother to read it for themselves. It is a sad state of affairs that persons in our government will not be held accountable for their mistakes and incompetence simply because half of the American people can’t be bothered or put politics above the integrity of our government and the lives of those serving it and because those who claim to be professional journalists have sold out to partisan politics.

Democrats did not participate in this investigation. They released their own report yesterday which incredibly references Donald Trump 23 times.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

50 Responses to House Benghazi Report Released

  1. Chris says:

    “Rep. Mike Pompeo (KS-04) released the following statement regarding these findings:

    “We expect our government to make every effort to save the lives of Americans who serve in harm’s way. That did not happen in Benghazi. Politics were put ahead of the lives of Americans, and while the administration had made excuses and blamed the challenges posed by time and distance, the truth is that they did not try.””

    Doesn’t Pompeo’s statement directly contradict this part of the report’s findings, as cited by you in this article?

    “Despite President Obama and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta’s clear orders to deploy military assets, nothing was sent to Benghazi, and nothing was en route to Libya at the time the last two Americans were killed almost 8 hours after the attacks began. [pg. 141]

    • Tina says:

      Not really Chris. If the president gives an order I expect it to be carried out, don’t you?

      And if the President’s order was not carried out, I’d expect heads to roll, wouldn’t you?

      The truth is…they did not try to save the lives of the men and women, who number more than the four that died.

      The President knew, or should have known, that Libya was a dangerous place and ripe for an attack on the anniversary of 911. Hillary knew, or should have known the same thing and yet she did not plan for this probable outcome.

      The truth is…nothing was done to protect them in the first place and nothing was done to save them once they were attacked.

      The excuses made after the fact are lies. Talking points regarding the video during the “White House convened two-hour meeting at 7:30 PM” were more prominent than the people under fire in Benghazi…this should sicken you!

  2. Pete says:

    So we can expect indictments to soon follow? We’ve got to get something for this 800 page (are you kidding me!) report. Let’s empanel another committee of our best and brightest because it’s time and money very well spent.

    • Tina says:

      Pete why would you imagine it possible to get an indictment from the Obama Justice Department?

      The evidence in this and in the Hillary email scandal deserve indictments, you should be asking why every single department under Obama is so corrupt!

      You should be wondering why there has been so little transparency from this administration.

      Are you of a mind that our leaders should not be held accountable?

      And please do not lecture on government waste of taxpayer dollars. The democrat Party has been holding hearings and accusing the opposition similarly for decades, often with a lot less evidence. NEVER has there been as much opposition to an investigation, other than during another corrupt administration, the Bill Clinton era.

      • Pete says:

        First, I appreciate you lecturing me on the questions I should be asking. Second, nice pivot off topic. Finally, I’m so happy that I have you as my nonpartisan voice of truth on so many issues. Without your guidance I would be lost in all things social and political.

        • Tina says:

          Well Pete, I don’t know why you would expect me to be nonpartisan, since I clearly identify as a conservative.

          As for the truth, none of us out here can do anything but pursue the truth.

          I’d say if you were silly enough to “rely on me,” and me alone, for “guidance” on all things “social and political,” you deserve to feel ripped off. (sure you don’t)

          If I veered off topic it wasn’t very far. Hillary is right in the middle of all the corruption and if the FBI email criminal investigation proves as fruitful as I expect, so will Bill be right in the middle.

          You brought up the money.

          Finally, my apologies. I should have ASKED you if you wondered why there’s been so little transparency since Obama promised to be “the most transparent administration in history.” You’ve been civil with me and I appreciate it.

  3. Soaps says:

    Trey Gowdy was one of the few remaining Congressmen I had any respect for. But no longer. He spent 20 minutes talking about the report, but he never answered the two most important questions and the only things anyone cares about. Did Obama and Hillary fail to even try to rescue the embassy personnel and did they lie about it afterwards? He dodged every significant question and just said you could read the report and draw your own conclusions. Virtually no one is going to read the report, and if it is so ambiguous that you have to draw your own conclusions, it is worthless, as Gowdy now is. I was thinking maybe Hillary’s thugs had threatened his children.

    • Chris says:

      “he never answered the two most important questions and the only things anyone cares about. Did Obama and Hillary fail to even try to rescue the embassy personnel and did they lie about it afterwards?”

      The answers to both of those questions were in the report, as well as the reports from the past several investigations.

      The answer to both questions is no.

      That’s why Gowdy didn’t address those questions. He desperately wanted the answers to be “yes.”

      • Tina says:

        The only entity that can answer those questions is a court.

        The evidence has been gathered and is compelling. So far no one has been legally charged in the IRS scandal, the email scandal, or this scandal.

        Democrats play dumb; we know that were these shoes on Republican feet they would be acting like rabid dogs and calling for a lynching.

        • Libby says:

          “The only entity that can answer those questions is a court.”

          Alas, Trey has uncovered nothing to submit to a prosecutor or to a court. But that’s not gonna shut you up, is it?

    • Tina says:

      It’s a sad state of affairs when that suggestion is thought of as entirely possible.

      The other possibility is that he and his children are on the target list of Americans put out by ISIS. The President has not released that information to those in the private sector who are targeted but congress Critters and government employees might have been informed.

      One thing is for sure, our government is not operating the way we expect it to run. Whether its Congress, the Pentagon, CIA the Judicial, IRS, EPA, or any agency…something sinister and awful is afoot!

    • Libby says:

      “Trey Gowdy was one of the few remaining Congressmen I had any respect for.”

      So, are you also a Trump voter? Trey has told Politico that he will not be attending the GOP convention. Politico also reports that the Grand Old Party is having trouble finding folk willing to speak at said convention. Cause any politician possessed with any ambition at all is most decidedly distancing themselves from The ELE.

  4. Tina says:

    Rep. Susan Brooks (IN-05) released the following statement regarding these findings:

    “President Obama has said his worst mistake was ‘failing to plan for the day after … intervening in Libya.’ As a result of this ‘lead from behind’ foreign policy, the Libyan people were forced to make the dismal trade of the tyranny of Qadhafi for the terror of ISIS, Al-Qaeda and others. Although the State Department considered Libya a grave risk to American diplomats in 2011 and 2012, our people remained in a largely unprotected, unofficial facility that one diplomatic security agent the committee interviewed characterized as ‘a suicide mission.’”

    Rep. Jordan:

    On Tuesday’s “Laura Ingraham Show,” Benghazi Select Committee member Representative Jim Jordan (R-OH) stated that the security situation in Benghazi, Libya was “so bad that one diplomatic security agent said Benghazi is a ‘suicide mission,’ everybody there is going to die.” And that members of the State Department believed blaming the attacks on the video was “off the reservation” and a political move that was the White House’s doing.

    Jordan, after referencing an email sent to Clinton shortly after Gaddafi’s removal from Sidney Blumenthal that she was on the same side as the goddess of history, said, “[T]hey were committed to staying there, even though the security situation was so bad, so bad that one diplomatic security agent said Benghazi is a ‘suicide mission,’ everybody there is going to die. That’s how bad it was, but they were committed to staying there.”

    Jordan also accused the administration of misleading the American public for “political reasons.” He continued that the day after Susan Rice’s TV appearances where she blamed a video for the attack, State Department Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs experts said that Rice was “off the reservation.” And another said the White House was “very worried about the politics. This was all their doing.”

    Jordan also argued that politics drove the response to the attack while it was going on.


    “Two of our officers were killed in Benghazi by an Al Queda-like [sic] group”
    The Secretary of State to her daughter , September 11, 2012 1

    “We know that the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was
    a planned attack—not a protest” Summary of a statement by the Secretary of State to the Egyp-tian Prime Minister , September 12, 2012 2

    “To underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy” Benjamin J. Rhodes, defining one of the goals of Ambassador Susan E. Rice’s appearances on the Sunday news programs fol-
    lowing the Benghazi attacks, September 14, 20123

    “I gave Hillary a hug and shook her hand, and she said we are going to have the filmmaker arrested who was responsible for the death of my son.” Diary entry of Charles Woods, father of Tyrone Woods, Sepember 14, 2012

    The threat environment in Benghazi was so severe that on September 11, 2012, on the anniversary of September 11, one Diplomatic Security agent in Benghazi feared an attack that night and was not planning on going to sleep. He testified:

    You know, I wasn’t going to go to sleep that night. I was probably going to stay up throughout the night just because, one, it’s September 11, you know, and what was happening in Egypt. So if anything was to happen, it would happen late at night, early morning. So I wasn’t going to go to bed. I believe [Agent 2] was along the same mindset, but we hadn’t ratified whether, yes, this is what we are doing. It was just people are going to stay up. I had taken my weapon and ammunition and put it in my room.

    [Agent 2] had done the same thing. And I believe they had—[Agent 5] had his weapon with him as well in his room.10

    Sean P. Smith, the Information Management Officer at the Benghazi Mission compound, also feared an attack, telling a community of online gamers shortly before the attack: “[A]ssuming we don’t die tonight. We saw one of our ‘police’ that guard the compound taking pictures.”

    Although the attacks in Benghazi occurred later on the same day, they had little else in common with the Cairo protests. Significant differences included:

    • In Cairo, plans for the protest appeared on social media well before the actual demonstration.17 In Benghazi the attacks occurred without warnings on social media

    • In Cairo, protestors did not brandish or use weapons. 19 In Benghazi, attackers were armed with assault weapons, rocket propelled grenades, and sophisticated mortars; 20

    • In Cairo, protestors spray painted walls and did other minor damage.21 In Benghazi, the attackers burned down buildings and pounded U.S. facilities with mortars and machine gun fire; 22 and

    •In Cairo, the protest was confined to a single location. 23 In Benghazi, the attacks spanned nearly eight hours over two different locations. 24 Diplomatic Security personnel in Washington D.C. recognized differences as well.

    At 5:13 p.m. on September 11, 2012 James Bacigalupo, Regional Director for
    Diplomatic Security , Near Eastern Affairs Bureau, State Department, notified all regional security officers:

    Within the last few hours we have had one demonstration in which protestors infiltrated the perimeter of the compound in Cairo and an armed attack on our compound in Benghazi. Both are currently on-going and may be in response to the release of an anti-Islamic documentary and upcoming demonstration by
    Terry Jones this evening.25

    The differences also were noted by senior State Department officials as

    Victoria J. Nuland, Spokesperson, State Department, sent an email at 6:09 p.m. that included Jacob J. Sullivan, Deputy Chief of Staff and Director of Policy Planning, State Department, and Patrick F. Kennedy, Under Secretary for Management, State Department, among others.

    [Please] put out as two separate statements to bullpen, asap. On record, me.

    We can confirm that our office in Benghazi, Libya has been attacked by a group of militants. We are working with the Libyans now to try to restore security.

    In Cairo, we can confirm that Egyptian police have now removed the demonstrators who had entered our Embassy grounds earlier.

    For [press] guidance, if pressed whether we see a connection between these two.
    We have no information regarding a connection between these incidents. 2

    Gottta go. The report is easy to read…read it!

    • Pie Guevara says:

      Re : “The report is easy to read…read it!”

      So easy that Chris, pete will never bother to read it!

      • Tina says:

        Correct…they have not a smidgen of intellectual curiosity, nor do they want to entertain the idea that the people they put so much stock in are a bunch of corrupt, money grubbing, narcissistic, control freaks out for themselves.

        • Pete says:

          That’s a mean and not at all true statement about me. I’d expect that kind of attack from Pie, but not you Tina.

          • Pie Guevara says:

            Dear Sweet Pete — Instead of getting you panties in a bunch, read the report. Read it with an unprejudiced mind, it that is possible. Otherwise, drop dead.

          • Pete says:

            You need help.

          • Tina says:

            My response was generic rather than specific. I have no idea whether you will read it or not.

            Your comments seem to indicate disinclination though, so how about it, will you read it?

            I wasn’t kidding when I said it was easy to read. The team that put this together made it much more “user friendly” than most government or think tank reports I’ve seen.

      • Pete says:

        I’ll rely on Tina’s perspective. I think Trey Gowdy was a prosecutor so I’m sure he’ll see to it that charges are filed.

        On a side note, the Warren Commission report was about 800 pages long too. I read that report years ago and found it quite interesting.

  5. dewster says:

    OMG Benghazziiiiiiiii! Benghazzziiiiiii!

    The same info repeated over and over that is nothing more than political Theater

    From the Ambassadors family :

    Millions of tax dollars wasted all as an election witch hunt

    ya want real stuff read the emails and look at the laws they all broke.

    What about all the Lives lost on the Lie war #WMD no one ever cares about the thousands killed in these profit wars?

    It’s easy to sink Hilary use the real stuff. Enough Benghazzziiiiiii!!!!!!

    Again do you know where he is Buried? Can you answer that? have you gone to his grave and gave respects? I know that answer NO, It’s not too far away from you folks, just a ride away!

    • Tina says:

      With Americans dead your accusation is insulting and vulgar, Dewey, you of “read the official documents” fame.

      • dewster says:

        Tina The Ambassador chose to stay. His family has asked you to stop.

        You my friend are being insulting and Vulgar. You are politicizing for political gain. RESPECT the Ambassador and His Family. Why not go put flowers on his Grave? WHy do you not know where he is? I do and I did go by. Show some respect.

        You act like these 4 Americans are the only lives that matter. You do not fight for our dead soldiers in bad wars. You do not fight the GOP to stop trying to get rid of Vets Benefits or privatize the VA.

        You need to think about people not party

        I am not going to stand by and watch the families wishes ignored.

        if that upsets you then boo hoo.

        I am railing Hillary Clinton hard on real facts….Not this crap. Millions of dollars wasted on games by tea Party Politicians….

        She needs to be interrogated on other issues. Let us stick to that! BTW GW Cheney And others as well!

  6. J. Soden says:

    If history has shown us anything, $hrilLIARy would ignore laws, regulations, party platforms, requests FROM A FRIEND for more security in Benghazi and common decency in order to get whatever she wanted.

    • Dewster says:

      That is True of Both Hillary and Trump

      • Dewster says:

        BTW You need to read the emails. Stevens knew what was going on and elected to stay.

        The request for money to get more security was denied By Republican Congress.

        Get it right.

        • Peggy says:

          Not true!!

          State Department Spends $5 Mil on Glasses, Says Benghazi Investigation is Waste of Money:

          “The State Department is defending its purchase of $79,000 worth of Obama’s books.

          Finally someone at the State Department is concerned about taxpayer money… when it comes to investigating the murder of four Americans.

          Meanwhile here’s where what the State Department under Hillary Clinton spent taxpayer money on.

          Those records show the State Department bought $415,000 worth of alcohol in fiscal 2012, which was 25 percent more than the $331,000 spent in 2011 and more than triple the $118,000 spent in 2008.

          All this liquor and wine requires proper drinkware, of course. Thus, the State Department raced to fill an order of $5 million just hours before the shutdown, buying 12,000 pieces of hand-blown crystal glassware—retailing up to $85 per glass.

          But that was sensible compared to…

          Kindles are just right for teaching English, the State Department thinks, which is why it bought 2,500 of them from Amazon in a $16.5 million no-bid contract.

          That works out to $6,600 per Kindle Touch — a lot more than the $189 retail price.

          If only all that money wasn’t being wasted on investigating the murder of four Americans. Look at all the things it could be spent on…

          The U.S. State Department is defending its purchase of $79,000 worth of President Obama’s best-selling books.

          It had $20,000 on a portrait of Obama. The US Embassy had $150,000 to spend on a book about the ambassador’s residence. The US Embassy in Austria had $150,000+ for a Chevy Volt and its charging station.

          The New York Times reported in 2009 that Art in Embassies spends about $4.5 million a year for permanent art acquisitions.

          The State Department also has a Chief Diversity Officer, whose job it is to warn that “holding the fort” is a racist phrase.

          Investigating Benghazi is also probably racist. And a waste of taxpayer money. Unlike what the State Dept is spending cash on now.”

          AND THIS

          $6 Bil Vanishes From State Dept. Under Hillary Clinton:

          “In a mind-boggling example of how the government blows—or perhaps steals—our tax dollars, billions vanished from the U.S. State Department mostly while Hillary Clinton ran it, according to a new alert issued by the agency’s inspector general.

          Could the former Secretary of State be using the cash to fund an upcoming presidential campaign? In all, $6 billion are missing and it’s highly unlikely any of the money will ever be recovered. The cash was supposed to be used to pay contractors but it just disappeared and documents that could help track the dough cannot be located. How convenient! The paper trail, which federal law says must be maintained in the case of government contracts, has been destroyed or was never created to begin with.

          How could this possibly happen? Like a lot of government agencies, outside contracts are a free-for-all at the State Department with virtually no oversight. Hundreds of millions of dollars are doled out annually for a variety of services and no one bothers to follow up on the deals. This “exposes the department to significant financial risk,” according to the State Department Inspector General, which issued a special management alert this month outlining the lost $6 billion. The watchdog further writes that “it creates conditions conducive to fraud, as corrupt individuals may attempt to conceal evidence of illicit behavior by omitting key documents from the contract file.”

          Among the examples listed in the memo is a recent investigation of the closeout process for contracts involving the U.S. mission in Iraq. Investigators could not locate 33 of the 115 contract files totaling approximately $2.1 billion. Even of the files they found, more than half contained insufficient documents required by federal law. In one billion-dollar deal involving the State Department’s Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement in Afghanistan, the actual contract was determined to be “incomplete.”

          In one alarming case a contract file conveniently omitted that a $52 million deal was awarded to a company owned by the spouse of another State Department contractor employee performing as a specialist. In other cited cases a contracting officer actually falsified government technical review information in a $100 million deal and a contracting officer’s representative allowed nearly $800,000 to be paid on a deal with no official documents to support the payment. It’s the free-flow of public funds under extremely suspicious circumstances.

          At the very least the State Department is violating its own policy, according to the inspector general, which divulges that it’s found “repeated examples of poor contract file administration over the years.” The watchdog confirms that “it is the Department’s policy that all contracts, regardless of dollar value, be properly documented so as to provide complete record of: pre-solicitation activities; the solicitation, evaluation, and award process; and [sic] the administration of the contract through closeout.”

          This unbelievable report documenting the mysterious disappearance of $6 billion from the coffers of a major government agency brings to mind a similar and equally enraging story reported by Judicial Watch a few years ago. The Pentagon somehow lost $6.6 billion sent to Iraq for post-invasion “reconstruction.”

          The money was bundled in chunks of $100 bills and transported in turboprop military cargo planes known as C-130 Hercules. About $2.4 billion fit in each aircraft and 21 flights made trips, transporting a total of $12 billion in American currency to Iraq. More than half the money has never been recovered, according to the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction.

          A year later nearly half a billion dollars in oil destined for the Afghan National Army vanished. We will never know what happened because the Pentagon improperly shredded records that could have solved the mystery, according to a federal audit that exposed the fraud. The oil was part of a $1 billion fuel program largely funded by the U.S. government, which of course, means it was mostly Americans who saw their tax dollars blown in yet another government corruption scheme.

          Waste and fraud are par for the course in most bloated government agencies and JW has exposed a number of alarming examples over the years, both domestically and internationally. They involve practically all agencies, including the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) scandal-plagued food-stamp program, Medicare and Medicaid, the famously corrupt U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and President Obama’s fraud-infested $787 billion stimulus boondoggle, to name a few.”

        • dewster says:

          It takes funding to protect an embassy. It takes funding to protect a consulate. It takes funding to protect an outpost.

          Democrats enacted $1.803 billion for embassy security, construction and maintenance for fiscal 2010, when they still controlled the Senate and House. After Republicans took control of the House and picked up six Senate seats, Congress reduced the enacted budget to $1.616 billion in fiscal 2011, and to $1.537 billion for 2012.

          The administration requested $1.654 billion for the State Department’s Worldwide Security Protection program for fiscal 2012. House Republicans proposed funding the program at $1.557 billion. Congress eventually enacted $1.591 billion after the Senate weighed in.

          Congress has the right of oversight but it also has the power of the purse. …

          • Peggy says:

            If Hillary and her State Dept. “misplaced” $ 6 BILLION and spent $5 MILLION on wine goblets, wine, china, etc. to use up their budget for the fiscal years to justify and increase in it’s budget request, Congress did the right thing by not giving them the amount they requested.

            The inspector’s report is a scathing account of the dept’s incompetence. Only an idiot would give MORE money to a dept. that lost billions.

    • Tina says:

      She may just think of herself as divine and infallible.

  7. Tina says:

    Glad to hear it Pete.

    I don’t know that Trey Gowdy and his committee can force charges. I’m looking as I speak to see what I can find. (It’s hard to find answers through the fog of political spin)…ahhh

    There’s some evidence that Gowdy acted out of character (quite suddenly) in this investigation. There is evidence that his investigation, if it continued to a logical “legal” conclusion it might interfere with an ongoing criminal investigation compromising their case.

    National Review has always been a reliable source in my estimation:

    National Review:

    As one who was very pleased by the selection of Representative Trey Gowdy (R., S.C.) to chair the Benghazi Select Committee, I hate to seem like I’m haranguing him (see, e.g., here and here; but see also here). His investigative decisions, however, continue to be baffling.

    The latest development in the Hillary Clinton e-mail saga is the disclosure by her private attorney, David Kendall, that she has deleted all e-mail from the private server on which she improperly conducted government business while she was secretary of state. (See Shannen Coffin’s latest legal analysis regarding laws potentially broken by Mrs. Clinton here.) In light of the obvious ramifications this has for the Benghazi investigation, Fox News’s Greta Van Susteren asked Chairman Gowdy what he intended to do about it. Gowdy responded: We’re going to have a conversation with Secretary Clinton. I would hope that it would be a transcribed interview, which is private, it protects her privacy. It protects national-security interests. And it rebuts this notion that this is a political charade, which some Democrats suggest. Let’s have a private conversation about why you had your own server, why you didn’t return the records when you left the State Department. And why you decided to permanently delete them when you knew the congressional investigations were ongoing. The Washington Examiner is now reporting that Gowdy’s committee has, in fact, “formally requested” that Mrs. Clinton appear for a private, transcribed interview — not compulsory public testimony. It is hard to say what is more disappointing: the chairman’s plan or the instincts and apparent motivation behind it (good article)

    Gowdy responds to early criticism by Kevin McCarthy of National Review:

    “GOWDY: “Well, he is a friend, but my first reaction is Kevin, “you’re wrong.” When Speaker Boehner called me, he never mentioned Secretary Clinton’s name. In fact, we’ve had three public hearings, Joe. I’ve never mentioned her name. If you look at what we’ve done—the 50 some odd witnesses we’ve already interviewed, not a single one has been named Clinton; the 50,000 documents we have accessed that no other committee has accessed, less than 5 percent had anything to do with her. She was the secretary of State at all relevant times, so, of course, you have to talk to her. But we didn’t start with her and we’re not going to end with her. In fact, I’ve been pretty patient when she came before the committee. I still don’t have all her e-mails. Joe, as you know, we got a thousand just last week.”

    His response is that the committee’s responsibility was to get to the bottom of what happened in Benghazi not to investigate Hillary for possible criminal behavior.

    Shannen W. Coffin at National Review on possible laws broken by Hillary that do result in a trial with severe consequences for civilians and lower government workers or military:

    In the ongoing saga of Hillary Clinton’s exclusive use of a private server at her Chappaqua, N.Y., home, the latest bomb was thrown by her lawyer, David Kendall (of Bill Clinton impeachment fame). Late last week, Mr. Kendall wrote a lengthy letter to the Benghazi Select Committee to respond to Chairman Trey Gowdy’s demand that she turn over her server for inspection and analysis by a “neutral detached and independent third-party.” Mr. Kendall flatly refused the demand, suggesting that the committee lacked the authority to request it. But for good measure, Kendall explained that review of the server would be fruitless. After her personal lawyers reviewed the e-mails to determine which records Mrs. Clinton should return to the State Department, she “chose not to keep her non-record personal e-mails and asked that her account (which was no longer in active use) be set to retain only the most recent 60 days of e-mail.” To “avoid prolonging a discussion that would be academic,” Mr. Kendall adds, “no e-mails from for the time period January 21, 2009, through February 1, 2013, reside on the server or on any back-up systems associated with the server.” Thus, he concludes, “there are no e-mails from Secretary Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State on the server for any review, even if such review were appropriate or legally authorized.”

    Lawyers are not usually this bold when disclosing evidence that suggests potential breaches of criminal law. I say “potential” because it is impossible to know for sure — unless, of course, you, like most congressional Democrats, are willing to take Mr. Kendall’s (and Mrs. Clinton’s) word for it. But the destruction of any record while a person is subject to a congressional-committee investigation is a reason for humility, rather than hubris, on the part of that person’s lawyer. This is so because a number of federal laws prohibit obstruction of such investigations. And several federal criminal statutes might be implicated here. (The Congressional Research Service has been kind enough to pull them together: PDF here.) The Sarbanes-Oxley statute — enacted (with the support of Senator Clinton) in response to alleged document destruction by accounting firm Arthur Andersen in the Enron fraud investigation — prohibits just the sort of conduct here if, in fact, Mrs. Clinton destroyed any official records to avoid disclosure in a federal investigation. The statute provides the following: “Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States . . . or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or case, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.” (That statute may not be directly implicated by congressional investigations, since Congress is not a “department or agency of the United States.” But a strong argument could be made that the State Department’s response to such a congressional investigation is a “matter” within the scope of the law.) (Emphasis mine)

    That sounds like the House committee could make a referral to Justice. The Obama Justice Department shows no sign of interest or inclination. A different Justice Department very well might. I think the normal procedure in this case would be for Justice to appoint a special prosecutor but since the FBI case is ongoing and since Justice is in Obama’s pocket, that won’t happen.

    Judge Napolitano indicates there is no legal redress with respect to the report… but the remedy for lying, withholding information, and cover-up exposed in the report has a remedy and it remains with the voters. Sorry I lost the link and can’t find it again. But it seemsit’s up to us, Pete…we decide whether to put such a creature in power with the lives of our young men and women in uniform in her hands, not to mention the fate of the nation.

    I did find this article at Bill O’Reilly’s site by the Judge. Information regarding this issue in the Benghazi bigger story may be what Hillary has worked so hard to hide by having a private server and by refusing to be forthcoming and cooperative.

    She deserves to be investigated and tried, in my estimation, in addition to be denied her life’s dream.

    • Libby says:

      But Hils has already been investigated and nothing was found to try her for. We’re supposed to for a FOURTH ?

      There’s a very popular and colloquial definition of insanity. Can you bring it to mind, Tina?

      I’m warming to Hils, for entirely unpolitical reasons. When Chelsea’s second was born, I went looking for baby pictures, and there are few of the new one, but oodles of the grandparents cooing over the first one. And, you know, Bill and Hils are so cute together. It’s very heartening to see a marriage survive … all that marriage has survived.

      One of the many scurrilous anti-Hillary charges is that she’s a husband beater. That secret service tell-all writer (who, by the way, is condemned by his former employer as 1) never having had that kind of access, and 2) violating standards of professional decorum for a buck) says he heard a big fight and Bill left the room with a black eye.

      Now, firstly, everybody knows it takes at least an hour, usually many, for an eye to blacken. But, secondly, and most importantly, if ever a husband deserved a sock in the eye … it’s Bill.

      And yet, there they are, some years down the road, looking so cute together. I’m looking forward to the exploits of our first First Gentleman.

      • Tina says:

        “…and nothing was found to try her for.”

        Only by those who looked but didn’t want to find anything. Do you remember how some media were walking through the buildings in Benghazi and found Chris Stephens diary? That is how carefully this administration and the Democrats in /congress bothered to “look into” this attack.

        • Libby says:

          “Only by those who didn’t want to find anything.”

          Tina, we’ve just had the report from a Republican-led, two-year, $7M investigation that found nothing.

          I said you wouldn’t accept it. Now I think you are psychologically incapable of comprehending or accepting it.

      • Tina says:

        “It’s very heartening to see a marriage survive ”

        What marriage? He has to be warned when she’s coming home so the mistress can leave before she gets there.

        “That secret service tell-all writer (who, by the way, is condemned by his former employer as 1) never having had that kind of access, and 2) violating standards of professional decorum for a buck”

        That Secret Service agent’s version is the higher ups always push the guys under the us and cover their butts. He says it’s bologna he didn’t have that kind of access. The bucks may not be that ig but you can bet his life will become a holy he77 for having brought this out…that’s how your team plays the game, especially the Clintons.

        You can bet Loretta Lynch got her warning even if it was delivered in golf lingo.

        • Chris says:

          “What marriage? He has to be warned when she’s coming home so the mistress can leave before she gets there…

          …That Secret Service agent’s version is the higher ups always push the guys under the us and cover their butts. He says it’s bologna he didn’t have that kind of access. The bucks may not be that ig but you can bet his life will become a holy he77 for having brought this out…that’s how your team plays the game, especially the Clintons.

          You can bet Loretta Lynch got her warning even if it was delivered in golf lingo.”

          You know, an active imagination can be healthy, but not when you confuse it with reality. You have now resorted to simply making things up and being surprised when others don’t take your…whatever the opposite of fan-fiction is as the God’s honest truth.

          This is not healthy, and the constant state of fear, distrust and paranoia you promote is bad for our country. It was bad for us during the McCarthy era and it’s bad for us now. Have more respect for your nation.

          • Libby says:

            It is. It’s so sad. There’s this great shot, they’re both watching some event, and Bill’s got his arm around her, leaning in to whisper something … anybody who can’t look at that photo and go: “Awwww”, is a troubled individual.

            And I’m not being “fairytale,” here. It would not surprise me to hear that they haven’t slept in the same room for twenty years, but there is liking and respect, and one hell of a life together. That should be a comfort, not something to snipe at.

  8. Pie Guevara says:

    Pete says I need help. I would like to help Pete, READ IT!

    • Libby says:

      Pete will soon learn that there is no help for a fella whose argumentative and rhetorical style is typified by: piss, shit and … well, you get the idea.

      • Pie Guevara says:

        *Sigh* just more *iss and *hit from Libby. Yeah, I get the idea. I still advise Libby and her girlfriend Pete READ IT! Well, you get the idea.

        • Pete says:

          Pie you are truly scaring me and Post Scripts should also be very concerned. You seem the kind of person all your neighbors will say was a little strange, but had no idea he would shoot up a school.

          See something say something…I’m saying it now. You need mental help.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.