Gowdy: New Benghazi emails show 'disconnect' with Washington

[webfact]

Gowdy: New Benghazi emails show 'disconnect' with Washington
By LAURIE KELLMAN

WASHINGTON (AP) — The chairman of the panel investigating the deadly 2012 Benghazi attacks said Sunday that new information reveals a "total disconnect" between the security needs of U.S. personnel on the ground and the political priorities of Hillary Rodham Clinton's State Department staff in Washington.

Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., described emails from Ambassador Chris Stevens to the State Department requesting more security almost from the moment he arrived in Libya. The request virtually crossed paths with one Clinton's staff sent to Stevens, asking the new ambassador to read and respond to an email from a Clinton confidant, according to Gowdy. At another point, Clinton aide Victoria Nuland asked Stevens for advice on "public messaging" on the increasingly dangerous situation in the region, Gowdy said.

"He didn't need help with (public relations), and he was asking for more security," Gowdy said on CBS' "Face the Nation." Gowdy refused to release the emails on Sunday. But he said they point to "the total disconnect between what was happening in Libya with the escalation in violence — that we were a soft target, that there was an increase in anti-Western sentiment ... while Washington is asking him to read and react to a Sidney Blumenthal email and help on how to message the violence."

At one point, according to Gowdy, Stevens joked in an email: "Maybe we should ask another government to pay for our security upgrades because our government isn't willing to do it."

Gowdy described the emails as he defends his 17-month probe into the Sept. 11, 2012, attack that left Stevens and three other Americans dead, and anticipates Clinton's long-awaited public testimony on Thursday. The event is a make-or-break moment for the investigation that even some Republicans say was designed to undermine Clinton's second bid for president.

"I have told my own Republican colleagues and friends, shut up talking about things that you don't know anything about," Gowdy said Sunday on CBS.

Gowdy, a former prosecutor, insisted that his investigation is focused on the events before, during and after the deadly attacks. On Sunday, he cast Clinton as "just one out of 70" witnesses and suggested her testimony is of equal value with the others, at best. He's only interested in Clinton's testimony because she was secretary of state at the time of the attacks, so "you have to talk to her," Gowdy said.

Of more interest, he suggested, is one week in June 2012 that's covered by Stevens' emails and is key to the investigation.

As Gowdy describes them, Stevens' emails paint a picture of a newly installed ambassador in a consulate that's been the target of increasing terrorist attacks. Almost immediately, he "knows that there's been an uptick in violence, and he's asking for more security," Gowdy said on CBS.

"On almost exactly that day," Clinton aide Jake Sullivan asks Stevens to read and respond to an email from Blumenthal, "who knows nothing about Libya," Gowdy says.

Apparently additionally, Victoria Nuland, who is now assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian Affairs, emailed Stevens, "and says, 'We need help with your public messaging advice.'"
___

This version of story deletes reference to U.S. consulate because of questions about where in Benghazi, Libya Stevens was when requesting more security.

-- (c) Associated Press 2015-10-19

[pitrevie]

Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) acknowledged that House Republicans had consciously voted to reduce the funds allocated to the State Department for embassy security since winning the majority in 2010.

In fiscal year 2011, lawmakers shaved $128 million off of the administration's request for embassy security funding. House Republicans drained off even more funds in fiscal year 2012 -- cutting back on the department's request by $331 million.

[Boon Mee]

HRC has been attempting to dodge this bullet for how many years now? This issue with the reduced funds won't wash just like the video that supposedly was to blame for the attack.

[oneday]

The solution is to send every bureaucrat involved in this fiasco back in the US to the worst active Embassy we have now that is in severe danger of being attacked and let them see how they like it.

This would be those people in the State Department that were brain-dead to Ambassador Steven's request for an increase in security and those in Congress who voted to reduce money for security at Embassy's in highly volatile areas of the world.

[pitrevie]

HRC has been attempting to dodge this bullet for how many years now? This issue with the reduced funds won't wash just like the video that supposedly was to blame for the attack.

13 inquiries later how many million spent already and still no bullet.

In a letter on Sunday, Representative Elijah Commings, the panel’s top Democrat, blasted committee Chairman Trey Gowdy (R-South Carolina) for accusing Clinton of sending emails from her private server containing “some of the most protected information in our intelligence community, the release of which could jeopardize not only national security but human lives.”

“The problem with your accusation—as with so many others during this investigation,” Cummings responded in a letter Sunday, “is that you failed to check your facts before you made it, and the CIA has now informed the Select Committee that you were wrong.”

If only the GOP Congress had been prepared to spend that money on embassy security when it was requested there might not have been 4 people dead.

[chuckd]

Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) acknowledged that House Republicans had consciously voted to reduce the funds allocated to the State Department for embassy security since winning the majority in 2010.

In fiscal year 2011, lawmakers shaved $128 million off of the administration's request for embassy security funding. House Republicans drained off even more funds in fiscal year 2012 -- cutting back on the department's request by $331 million.

This is a Sen. Barbara Boxer claim that has been roundly disputed. Her claim drew three Pinocchios from the Washington Post.

In the first place, any budget submitted by a federal agency is a pie-in-the-sky amount that they would love to receive. There is then the negotiation process with Congress where a lesser amount is nearly always agreed upon, but is frequently an increase in the amount of allocated funds from previous years.

In the second place, the fiscal year 2011 budget was requested during the calendar year of 2010. The Democrats were in charge of both Houses of Congress during that time frame and, had the Democrats so wanted, they could have approved any amount they wished.

The Democrats were unable to get a budget bill through Congress even though they were the majority party, so they ran the government on Continuing Resolutions until early 2011. The 2011 budget was approved by the Republican led Congress after the amount requested had been trimmed back.

The amount requested for expenditures by the Obama administration was $3.834 Trillion.

The amount approved for expenditures was $3.603 Trillion, a difference of $231 Billion spread over the entire federal government.

The Department of State’s requests for security funding had increased by 38% since Fiscal 2007 while base budget appropriations increased by 27% in the same time frame.

With a 27% increase in funding over the 2007-2011 budget years, the spending was a matter of State Department priority and had nothing to do with the Republicans in Congress. The Democrats were up to their collective necks in the budget requests being trimmed.

The actual allocated funds to the State Department were increased, not decreased.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/barbara-boxers-claim-that-gop-budgets-hampered-benghazi-security/2013/05/15/d1e295cc-bdb0-11e2-97d4-a479289a31f9_blog.html

[chuckd]

HRC has been attempting to dodge this bullet for how many years now? This issue with the reduced funds won't wash just like the video that supposedly was to blame for the attack.

13 inquiries later how many million spent already and still no bullet.

In a letter on Sunday, Representative Elijah Commings, the panel’s top Democrat, blasted committee Chairman Trey Gowdy (R-South Carolina) for accusing Clinton of sending emails from her private server containing “some of the most protected information in our intelligence community, the release of which could jeopardize not only national security but human lives.”

“The problem with your accusation—as with so many others during this investigation,” Cummings responded in a letter Sunday, “is that you failed to check your facts before you made it, and the CIA has now informed the Select Committee that you were wrong.”

If only the GOP Congress had been prepared to spend that money on embassy security when it was requested there might not have been 4 people dead.

Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD) is the ranking Democrat member of the Special Committee. It is his job to protect Clinton at any and all costs.

Anything he says should be taken with a grain of salt.

Now permit me to rewrite your last sentence to something realistic:

"If only the State Department had been prepared to spend the money on Benghazi security when they had it, there might not have been 4 dead Americans.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

The following links are provided for those interested in reality. It should also be pointed out these articles are from Politico, which is a decidedly left leaning source.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/10/benghazi-trey-gowdy-elijah-cummings-214908

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/10/trey-gowdy-benghazi-214911

[pitrevie]

HRC has been attempting to dodge this bullet for how many years now? This issue with the reduced funds won't wash just like the video that supposedly was to blame for the attack.

13 inquiries later how many million spent already and still no bullet.

In a letter on Sunday, Representative Elijah Commings, the panel’s top Democrat, blasted committee Chairman Trey Gowdy (R-South Carolina) for accusing Clinton of sending emails from her private server containing “some of the most protected information in our intelligence community, the release of which could jeopardize not only national security but human lives.”

“The problem with your accusation—as with so many others during this investigation,” Cummings responded in a letter Sunday, “is that you failed to check your facts before you made it, and the CIA has now informed the Select Committee that you were wrong.”

If only the GOP Congress had been prepared to spend that money on embassy security when it was requested there might not have been 4 people dead.

Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD) is the ranking Democrat member of the Special Committee. It is his job to protect Clinton at any and all costs.

Anything he says should be taken with a grain of salt.

Now permit me to rewrite your last sentence to something realistic:

"If only the State Department had been prepared to spend the money on Benghazi security when they had it, there might not have been 4 dead Americans.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

The following links are provided for those interested in reality. It should also be pointed out these articles are from Politico, which is a decidedly left leaning source.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/10/benghazi-trey-gowdy-elijah-cummings-214908

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/10/trey-gowdy-benghazi-214911

So I guess the CIA when they reported to the committee were also not interested in reality.

However it must be getting very difficult for you now with first the gaffe coming from McCarthy admitting what the Benghazi inquiry was all about and then followed by another GOPer Hanna also confirming what McCarthy had opined. Is that the sort of reality you have in mind or do you still think its about the 4 dead in Benghazi?

[Chicog]

The good thing is that this pointless partisan witch hunt is just raising the ire of Democrat voters and pushing money and votes in Clinton's direction.

I'm looking forward to Clinton's testimony. I think I'll watch it on Fox for maximum comedy value.

Boehner must be laughing his socks off that, having started this crock, he's now out of it.

[chuckd]

HRC has been attempting to dodge this bullet for how many years now? This issue with the reduced funds won't wash just like the video that supposedly was to blame for the attack.

13 inquiries later how many million spent already and still no bullet.

In a letter on Sunday, Representative Elijah Commings, the panel’s top Democrat, blasted committee Chairman Trey Gowdy (R-South Carolina) for accusing Clinton of sending emails from her private server containing “some of the most protected information in our intelligence community, the release of which could jeopardize not only national security but human lives.”

“The problem with your accusation—as with so many others during this investigation,” Cummings responded in a letter Sunday, “is that you failed to check your facts before you made it, and the CIA has now informed the Select Committee that you were wrong.”

If only the GOP Congress had been prepared to spend that money on embassy security when it was requested there might not have been 4 people dead.

Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD) is the ranking Democrat member of the Special Committee. It is his job to protect Clinton at any and all costs.

Anything he says should be taken with a grain of salt.

Now permit me to rewrite your last sentence to something realistic:

"If only the State Department had been prepared to spend the money on Benghazi security when they had it, there might not have been 4 dead Americans.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

The following links are provided for those interested in reality. It should also be pointed out these articles are from Politico, which is a decidedly left leaning source.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/10/benghazi-trey-gowdy-elijah-cummings-214908

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/10/trey-gowdy-benghazi-214911

So I guess the CIA when they reported to the committee were also not interested in reality.

However it must be getting very difficult for you now with first the gaffe coming from McCarthy admitting what the Benghazi inquiry was all about and then followed by another GOPer Hanna also confirming what McCarthy had opined. Is that the sort of reality you have in mind or do you still think its about the 4 dead in Benghazi?

The two Republican Congressional members are not part of the Select Committee, had not been briefed nor had they requested briefings be provided them. In short, they were not in the loop and had no viable information to provide. The staff member had been fired in June and might have even been a slight bit disgruntled with the Select Committee.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

For your information, Rep. Gowdy sent a letter to Rep. Cummings on 18 October in response to Cummings letter of 7 October and the CIA.

Gowdy's letter to Cummings said this in part:

"Contrary to your assertion, the CIA did not inform the Committee that anything about the facts stated in the October 7 letter “[was] wrong.” As usual, I would ask you to completely and accurately relate the facts rather than attempt to create an impression that is misleading based on an incomplete and selective recitation of the facts. In fact, my understanding is the CIA advised the Committee in a very brief email late Saturday night that it had reviewed the material in question and asked for no material to be redacted. In fact, the name of the alleged source was redacted from the material cleared for public release by someone in the Executive Branch – the fact that the CIA says it didn’t do it does not mean the material was not sensitive or classified. And in fact, additional information remains in the document that ordinarily would be considered highly sensitive. This appears to mean either Mr. Blumenthal conveyed false and unreliable information to Secretary Clinton about Libya and misrepresented it, or the review process is faulty or has been politicized. I also note the fact you did not quote the material in question in your letter, suggesting you yourself have reason to believe that it should not be publicly disclosed for some proper reason. These are important issues. I’m glad to know you also consider them important and worthy of detailed additional review by the Committee."

Gowdy's entire letter can be found here: http://benghazi.house.gov/news/press-releases/gowdy-response-to-latest-cummings-letter

---------------------------------------------------------------------

I was particularly moved by Gowdy's closing PS:

"PS: I am envious of your staff's ability to get information from this administration in less than 45 minutes on a weekend. This is something the majority Members struggle to do on weekdays. Perhaps you would be willing to help us gain access to the information the Committee has been seeking from the administration for over half a year now."

Edited October 19, 2015 by chuckd

[Chicog]

I'm surprised he wrote a letter. Normally he just leaks stuff.

[ricklev]

Really, in your heart of hearts why not just admit to yourself that there really is nothing wrong with Hillary. You just hate her because that's how you are told to think. She is as much a Republican as anyone in your party was twenty-five years ago and as much a defense hawk as you need her to be. Let's be honest, your hatred of her (and Obama) is just a political tactic that is destroying a great country.

Edited October 19, 2015 by ricklev

[chuckd]

The good thing is that this pointless partisan witch hunt is just raising the ire of Democrat voters and pushing money and votes in Clinton's direction.

I'm looking forward to Clinton's testimony. I think I'll watch it on Fox for maximum comedy value.

Boehner must be laughing his socks off that, having started this crock, he's now out of it.

This "pointless partisan witch hunt" was the first to discover Hillary was using an unauthorized server in her e-mails.

According to CBS News in September, she was bleeding support, not gaining voters.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

By STEPHANIE CONDON CBS NEWS September 14, 2015, 1:18 PM

Hillary Clinton loses support from white female Democrats, poll shows

Hillary Clinton is still leading the Democratic field nationally, according to a new Washington Post/ ABC poll, but her support has fallen to below 50 percent in large part due to a loss of support from white women.

As many as 42 percent of registered Democrats and registered Democratic-leaning independents support Clinton's presidential bid, according to the poll, conducted September 7-10. Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vermont, has 24 percent support, and Vice President Joe Biden -- who has yet to decide whether or not he's running -- wins 21 percent support.

While the former secretary of state still has a commanding lead over her Democratic opponents, her support has fallen 21 points among Democrats since July, the poll shows. The most notable drop in support comes from white women -- 64 percent of this demographic group supported her in July, while 31 percent support in her this survey.

Article continues here: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-clinton-loses-support-from-white-female-democrats-poll-shows/

[Chicog]

Whoop de doo. Bernie got it right in the debate.

[chuckd]

Really, in your heart of hearts why not just admit to yourself that there really is nothing wrong with Hillary. You just hate her because that's how you are told to think. She is as much a Republican as anyone in your party was twenty-five years ago and as much a defense hawk as you need her to be. Let's be honest, your hatred of her (and Obama) is just a political tactic that is destroying a great country.

That's the best you can come up with? I am personally being accused of not being honest and destroying America?:

"Let's be honest, your hatred of her (and Obama) is just a political tactic that is destroying a great country."

I appreciate the potential power you have bestowed on me but in most liberal minds (is there such a thing?) I am a grumpy old white man living in a far off land.

You can't have it both ways. I can't be a grumpy old white man and the single person that is destroying a great country at the same time.

Choose one or the other, but be kind.

However, for the record, I don't like her for the same reason I dislike Obama. Neither of them are qualified to be President of the USA.

They're both sleazy politicians.

[chuckd]

I'm surprised he wrote a letter. Normally he just leaks stuff.

Yeah, I was surprised as well that Cummings wrote the letter. He should have realized a letter can be traced back to him.

[Chicog]

However, for the record, I don't like her for the same reason I dislike Obama. Neither of them are qualified to be President of the USA.

They're both sleazy politicians.

If that was the criterion I'm not sure any of them would be eligible, including the clowns!

Edited October 19, 2015 by Chicog

[pitrevie]

The two Republican Congressional members are not part of the Select Committee, had not been briefed nor had they requested briefings be provided them. In short, they were not in the loop and had no viable information to provide. The staff member had been fired in June and might have even been a slight bit disgruntled with the Select Committee.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

For your information, Rep. Gowdy sent a letter to Rep. Cummings on 18 October in response to Cummings letter of 7 October and the CIA.

Gowdy's letter to Cummings said this in part:

"Contrary to your assertion, the CIA did not inform the Committee that anything about the facts stated in the October 7 letter “[was] wrong.” As usual, I would ask you to completely and accurately relate the facts rather than attempt to create an impression that is misleading based on an incomplete and selective recitation of the facts. In fact, my understanding is the CIA advised the Committee in a very brief email late Saturday night that it had reviewed the material in question and asked for no material to be redacted. In fact, the name of the alleged source was redacted from the material cleared for public release by someone in the Executive Branch – the fact that the CIA says it didn’t do it does not mean the material was not sensitive or classified. And in fact, additional information remains in the document that ordinarily would be considered highly sensitive. This appears to mean either Mr. Blumenthal conveyed false and unreliable information to Secretary Clinton about Libya and misrepresented it, or the review process is faulty or has been politicized. I also note the fact you did not quote the material in question in your letter, suggesting you yourself have reason to believe that it should not be publicly disclosed for some proper reason. These are important issues. I’m glad to know you also consider them important and worthy of detailed additional review by the Committee."

Gowdy's entire letter can be found here: http://benghazi.house.gov/news/press-releases/gowdy-response-to-latest-cummings-letter

---------------------------------------------------------------------

I was particularly moved by Gowdy's closing PS:

"PS: I am envious of your staff's ability to get information from this administration in less than 45 minutes on a weekend. This is something the majority Members struggle to do on weekdays. Perhaps you would be willing to help us gain access to the information the Committee has been seeking from the administration for over half a year now."

So I guess McCarthy when he let the cat out of the bag regarding the true purpose of this, the umpteenth inquiry didn't know what he was talking about. However you then go on to confirm what McCarthy let slip and that was the true purpose of the Benghazi inquiry was to damage HRC's presidential bid. Still I guess the bullet will arrive some day especially if HRC does win, that should guarantee at least another half dozen Benghazi inquiries. Its such a shame that the GOP want so assiduous in looking at 9/11 or the quest for WMD which is the cause of the present debacle in the Middle East.

[chuckd]

The two Republican Congressional members are not part of the Select Committee, had not been briefed nor had they requested briefings be provided them. In short, they were not in the loop and had no viable information to provide. The staff member had been fired in June and might have even been a slight bit disgruntled with the Select Committee.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

For your information, Rep. Gowdy sent a letter to Rep. Cummings on 18 October in response to Cummings letter of 7 October and the CIA.

Gowdy's letter to Cummings said this in part:

"Contrary to your assertion, the CIA did not inform the Committee that anything about the facts stated in the October 7 letter “[was] wrong.” As usual, I would ask you to completely and accurately relate the facts rather than attempt to create an impression that is misleading based on an incomplete and selective recitation of the facts. In fact, my understanding is the CIA advised the Committee in a very brief email late Saturday night that it had reviewed the material in question and asked for no material to be redacted. In fact, the name of the alleged source was redacted from the material cleared for public release by someone in the Executive Branch – the fact that the CIA says it didn’t do it does not mean the material was not sensitive or classified. And in fact, additional information remains in the document that ordinarily would be considered highly sensitive. This appears to mean either Mr. Blumenthal conveyed false and unreliable information to Secretary Clinton about Libya and misrepresented it, or the review process is faulty or has been politicized. I also note the fact you did not quote the material in question in your letter, suggesting you yourself have reason to believe that it should not be publicly disclosed for some proper reason. These are important issues. I’m glad to know you also consider them important and worthy of detailed additional review by the Committee."

Gowdy's entire letter can be found here: http://benghazi.house.gov/news/press-releases/gowdy-response-to-latest-cummings-letter

---------------------------------------------------------------------

I was particularly moved by Gowdy's closing PS:

"PS: I am envious of your staff's ability to get information from this administration in less than 45 minutes on a weekend. This is something the majority Members struggle to do on weekdays. Perhaps you would be willing to help us gain access to the information the Committee has been seeking from the administration for over half a year now."

So I guess McCarthy when he let the cat out of the bag regarding the true purpose of this, the umpteenth inquiry didn't know what he was talking about. However you then go on to confirm what McCarthy let slip and that was the true purpose of the Benghazi inquiry was to damage HRC's presidential bid. Still I guess the bullet will arrive some day especially if HRC does win, that should guarantee at least another half dozen Benghazi inquiries. Its such a shame that the GOP want so assiduous in looking at 9/11 or the quest for WMD which is the cause of the present debacle in the Middle East.

" However you then go on to confirm what McCarthy let slip and that was the true purpose of the Benghazi inquiry was to damage HRC's presidential bid. "

Care to expand on this allegation?

[pitrevie]

The two Republican Congressional members are not part of the Select Committee, had not been briefed nor had they requested briefings be provided them. In short, they were not in the loop and had no viable information to provide. The staff member had been fired in June and might have even been a slight bit disgruntled with the Select Committee.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

For your information, Rep. Gowdy sent a letter to Rep. Cummings on 18 October in response to Cummings letter of 7 October and the CIA.

Gowdy's letter to Cummings said this in part:

"Contrary to your assertion, the CIA did not inform the Committee that anything about the facts stated in the October 7 letter “[was] wrong.” As usual, I would ask you to completely and accurately relate the facts rather than attempt to create an impression that is misleading based on an incomplete and selective recitation of the facts. In fact, my understanding is the CIA advised the Committee in a very brief email late Saturday night that it had reviewed the material in question and asked for no material to be redacted. In fact, the name of the alleged source was redacted from the material cleared for public release by someone in the Executive Branch – the fact that the CIA says it didn’t do it does not mean the material was not sensitive or classified. And in fact, additional information remains in the document that ordinarily would be considered highly sensitive. This appears to mean either Mr. Blumenthal conveyed false and unreliable information to Secretary Clinton about Libya and misrepresented it, or the review process is faulty or has been politicized. I also note the fact you did not quote the material in question in your letter, suggesting you yourself have reason to believe that it should not be publicly disclosed for some proper reason. These are important issues. I’m glad to know you also consider them important and worthy of detailed additional review by the Committee."

Gowdy's entire letter can be found here: http://benghazi.house.gov/news/press-releases/gowdy-response-to-latest-cummings-letter

---------------------------------------------------------------------

I was particularly moved by Gowdy's closing PS:

"PS: I am envious of your staff's ability to get information from this administration in less than 45 minutes on a weekend. This is something the majority Members struggle to do on weekdays. Perhaps you would be willing to help us gain access to the information the Committee has been seeking from the administration for over half a year now."

So I guess McCarthy when he let the cat out of the bag regarding the true purpose of this, the umpteenth inquiry didn't know what he was talking about. However you then go on to confirm what McCarthy let slip and that was the true purpose of the Benghazi inquiry was to damage HRC's presidential bid. Still I guess the bullet will arrive some day especially if HRC does win, that should guarantee at least another half dozen Benghazi inquiries. Its such a shame that the GOP want so assiduous in looking at 9/11 or the quest for WMD which is the cause of the present debacle in the Middle East.

" However you then go on to confirm what McCarthy let slip and that was the true purpose of the Benghazi inquiry was to damage HRC's presidential bid. "

Care to expand on this allegation?

Are you serious because if you are you must be the only one on the planet with any interest in this that didn't see his interview with Hannity.

“Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right? But we put together a Benghazi special committee, a select committee. What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping. Why? Because she’s untrustable. But no one would’ve known any of that had happened had we not fought and made that happen.”

[Chicog]

It seems Fox have got their teeth into "Ambassador Stevens asked for additional security but his mails were never answered".

Should be interesting seeing if Gowdy brings this up in the Kangaroo Court.

In the month before attackers stormed U.S. facilities in Benghazi and killed four Americans, U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens twice turned down offers of security assistance made by the senior U.S. military official in the region in response to concerns that Stevens had raised in a still secret memorandum, two government officials told McClatchy.

Why Stevens, who died of smoke inhalation in the first of two attacks that took place late Sept. 11 and early Sept. 12, 2012, would turn down the offers remains unclear. The deteriorating security situation in Benghazi had been the subject of a meeting that embassy officials held Aug. 15, where they concluded they could not defend the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi.

Now why would Gowdy not question either of these two on this matter for his show trial I wonder?

Link

Edited October 20, 2015 by metisdead
Edited as per fair use policy.

[Pinot]

HRC has been attempting to dodge this bullet for how many years now? This issue with the reduced funds won't wash just like the video that supposedly was to blame for the attack.

The bullet fired by discredited and now totally ridiculous Republican Benghazi committee? That bullet?

No matter how much lipstick they put on this pig at this point...it ain't gonna help. It's a joke. Just like everything else the Republicans do. They can't do anything right.

No one outside of the wingnutosphere believes anything the Bengahazi committee clowns come up with at this point.

They should just let the poor thing die. It's already dead. Mort. Muerto. Finito. Stick a fork in it. Done.

These idiots are hilarious. Total incompetence. Incapable of governing. Donald Trump, Ben Carson, yadda yadda.

Edited October 19, 2015 by Pinot

[chuckd]

The two Republican Congressional members are not part of the Select Committee, had not been briefed nor had they requested briefings be provided them. In short, they were not in the loop and had no viable information to provide. The staff member had been fired in June and might have even been a slight bit disgruntled with the Select Committee.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

For your information, Rep. Gowdy sent a letter to Rep. Cummings on 18 October in response to Cummings letter of 7 October and the CIA.

Gowdy's letter to Cummings said this in part:

"Contrary to your assertion, the CIA did not inform the Committee that anything about the facts stated in the October 7 letter “[was] wrong.” As usual, I would ask you to completely and accurately relate the facts rather than attempt to create an impression that is misleading based on an incomplete and selective recitation of the facts. In fact, my understanding is the CIA advised the Committee in a very brief email late Saturday night that it had reviewed the material in question and asked for no material to be redacted. In fact, the name of the alleged source was redacted from the material cleared for public release by someone in the Executive Branch – the fact that the CIA says it didn’t do it does not mean the material was not sensitive or classified. And in fact, additional information remains in the document that ordinarily would be considered highly sensitive. This appears to mean either Mr. Blumenthal conveyed false and unreliable information to Secretary Clinton about Libya and misrepresented it, or the review process is faulty or has been politicized. I also note the fact you did not quote the material in question in your letter, suggesting you yourself have reason to believe that it should not be publicly disclosed for some proper reason. These are important issues. I’m glad to know you also consider them important and worthy of detailed additional review by the Committee."

Gowdy's entire letter can be found here: http://benghazi.house.gov/news/press-releases/gowdy-response-to-latest-cummings-letter

---------------------------------------------------------------------

I was particularly moved by Gowdy's closing PS:

"PS: I am envious of your staff's ability to get information from this administration in less than 45 minutes on a weekend. This is something the majority Members struggle to do on weekdays. Perhaps you would be willing to help us gain access to the information the Committee has been seeking from the administration for over half a year now."

So I guess McCarthy when he let the cat out of the bag regarding the true purpose of this, the umpteenth inquiry didn't know what he was talking about. However you then go on to confirm what McCarthy let slip and that was the true purpose of the Benghazi inquiry was to damage HRC's presidential bid. Still I guess the bullet will arrive some day especially if HRC does win, that should guarantee at least another half dozen Benghazi inquiries. Its such a shame that the GOP want so assiduous in looking at 9/11 or the quest for WMD which is the cause of the present debacle in the Middle East.

" However you then go on to confirm what McCarthy let slip and that was the true purpose of the Benghazi inquiry was to damage HRC's presidential bid. "

Care to expand on this allegation?

Are you serious because if you are you must be the only one on the planet with any interest in this that didn't see his interview with Hannity.

“Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right? But we put together a Benghazi special committee, a select committee. What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping. Why? Because she’s untrustable. But no one would’ve known any of that had happened had we not fought and made that happen.”

I didn't confirm anything of the sort. You mentioned the McCarthy, Hanna and a fired investigator's comments. I responded with the answer provided to them by Gowdy. My response was...

"The two Republican Congressional members are not part of the Select Committee, had not been briefed nor had they requested briefings be provided them. In short, they were not in the loop and had no viable information to provide. The staff member had been fired in June and might have even been a slight bit disgruntled with the Select Committee."

Now, which precise words did I offer that confirmed anything along the lines you want so desperately to put forth?

I haven't seen Hannity in about 7 years so, yep, I must be a minority of one in the entire world that didn't see McCarthy's comments.

Since you didn't provide a link to what he said, I'll just take your word that you quoted him correctly.

The Select Committee is led by a former Federal Prosecutor that is guarding his sources and information closely. McCarthy has no idea who has been interviewed or what has been said by them. In short, both he and Hanna are in the dark about the investigation. He shot his mouth off and it cost him the only chance he will ever have to become Speaker of the House and second in line for the Presidency.

[chuckd]

It seems Fox have got their teeth into "Ambassador Stevens asked for additional security but his mails were never answered".

Should be interesting seeing if Gowdy brings this up in the Kangaroo Court.

In the month before attackers stormed U.S. facilities in Benghazi and killed four Americans, U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens twice turned down offers of security assistance made by the senior U.S. military official in the region in response to concerns that Stevens had raised in a still secret memorandum, two government officials told McClatchy.

Why Stevens, who died of smoke inhalation in the first of two attacks that took place late Sept. 11 and early Sept. 12, 2012, would turn down the offers remains unclear. The deteriorating security situation in Benghazi had been the subject of a meeting that embassy officials held Aug. 15, where they concluded they could not defend the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi.

Now why would Gowdy not question either of these two on this matter for his show trial I wonder?

Link

Rep. Gowdy only received Ambassador Steven's emails in the last few days. It is his intent to question Secretary Clinton abut them.

Here he is on Face the Nation yesterday:

[Chicog]

Rep. Gowdy only received Ambassador Steven's emails in the last few days. It is his intent to question Secretary Clinton abut them.

Why doesn't he ask the people who offered military protection to Stevens and were turned down?

This information has been in the public domain since 2013.

Is it possibly because they will confirm it, which very much makes Stevens look like he was responsible for his own vulnerability? Yet even today, Fox are gleefully reporting that he was "begging" for more security.

This witch hunt is embarrassing, it's almost Pythonesque.

Added: Hasn't Gowdy read pp20-21 of the Senate Intelligence Committee report?

Or is he just hoping people haven't noticed?

Edited October 19, 2015 by Chicog

[chuckd]

Rep. Gowdy only received Ambassador Steven's emails in the last few days. It is his intent to question Secretary Clinton abut them.

Why doesn't he ask the people who offered military protection to Stevens and were turned down?

This information has been in the public domain since 2013.

Is it possibly because they will confirm it, which very much makes Stevens look like he was responsible for his own vulnerability? Yet even today, Fox are gleefully reporting that he was "begging" for more security.

This witch hunt is embarrassing, it's almost Pythonesque.

Added: Hasn't Gowdy read pp20-21 of the Senate Intelligence Committee report?

Or is he just hoping people haven't noticed?

You're citing an alleged telephone conversation which took place between General Ham and Ambassador Stevens. What's in question is the content of Ambassador Stevens emails, and that information was only recently provided to the Select Committee by the State Department.

Maybe they have asked all those questions you detail, and even more.

I don't know, you don't know and none of us will know until the final report is submitted.

[pitrevie]

So I guess McCarthy when he let the cat out of the bag regarding the true purpose of this, the umpteenth inquiry didn't know what he was talking about. However you then go on to confirm what McCarthy let slip and that was the true purpose of the Benghazi inquiry was to damage HRC's presidential bid. Still I guess the bullet will arrive some day especially if HRC does win, that should guarantee at least another half dozen Benghazi inquiries. Its such a shame that the GOP want so assiduous in looking at 9/11 or the quest for WMD which is the cause of the present debacle in the Middle East.

" However you then go on to confirm what McCarthy let slip and that was the true purpose of the Benghazi inquiry was to damage HRC's presidential bid. "

Care to expand on this allegation?

Are you serious because if you are you must be the only one on the planet with any interest in this that didn't see his interview with Hannity.

“Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right? But we put together a Benghazi special committee, a select committee. What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping. Why? Because she’s untrustable. But no one would’ve known any of that had happened had we not fought and made that happen.”

I didn't confirm anything of the sort. You mentioned the McCarthy, Hanna and a fired investigator's comments. I responded with the answer provided to them by Gowdy. My response was...

"The two Republican Congressional members are not part of the Select Committee, had not been briefed nor had they requested briefings be provided them. In short, they were not in the loop and had no viable information to provide. The staff member had been fired in June and might have even been a slight bit disgruntled with the Select Committee."

Now, which precise words did I offer that confirmed anything along the lines you want so desperately to put forth?

I haven't seen Hannity in about 7 years so, yep, I must be a minority of one in the entire world that didn't see McCarthy's comments.

Since you didn't provide a link to what he said, I'll just take your word that you quoted him correctly.

The Select Committee is led by a former Federal Prosecutor that is guarding his sources and information closely. McCarthy has no idea who has been interviewed or what has been said by them. In short, both he and Hanna are in the dark about the investigation. He shot his mouth off and it cost him the only chance he will ever have to become Speaker of the House and second in line for the Presidency.

In you previous post you also made reference to the fall in HRC's popularity and that has what this has been about all the time. Nothing to do with obtaining the facts about Benghazi but more to do with stopping HRC's presidential; bid. The quote from McCarthy is verbatim easily obtained in 30 seconds if you wish to confirm it and his interview with Hannity is plastered all over the internet as well as quoted at length in the Washington Post which you delight in referring to so often.

McCarthy knew the reason for this latest smear attempt and he couldn't wait to tell Hannity about it. In fact it seemed to be what he thought would be something that would secure him the speakers job. This is the back pedal job.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/10/05/kevin-mccarthys-big-benghazi-mistake-was-exactly-what-hillary-clinton-needed/

[stevenl]

Isn't a disconnect with Washington a recommendation these days?

[Pinot]

"The Republican-led House Select Committee on Benghazi hastily deleted the name of a high-level Libyan defector from one of its public releases on Monday, shortly after Yahoo News reported the panel had inadvertently revealed the defector’s name in an effort to embarrass Hillary Clinton."

The Republican incompetence knows no bounds. They're pathetic.

https://www.yahoo.com/politics/house-benghazi-committee-chairman-trey-gowdy-200901550.html

Edited October 20, 2015 by Pinot

[chuckd]

Are you serious because if you are you must be the only one on the planet with any interest in this that didn't see his interview with Hannity.

“Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right? But we put together a Benghazi special committee, a select committee. What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping. Why? Because she’s untrustable. But no one would’ve known any of that had happened had we not fought and made that happen.”

I didn't confirm anything of the sort. You mentioned the McCarthy, Hanna and a fired investigator's comments. I responded with the answer provided to them by Gowdy. My response was...

"The two Republican Congressional members are not part of the Select Committee, had not been briefed nor had they requested briefings be provided them. In short, they were not in the loop and had no viable information to provide. The staff member had been fired in June and might have even been a slight bit disgruntled with the Select Committee."

Now, which precise words did I offer that confirmed anything along the lines you want so desperately to put forth?

I haven't seen Hannity in about 7 years so, yep, I must be a minority of one in the entire world that didn't see McCarthy's comments.

Since you didn't provide a link to what he said, I'll just take your word that you quoted him correctly.

The Select Committee is led by a former Federal Prosecutor that is guarding his sources and information closely. McCarthy has no idea who has been interviewed or what has been said by them. In short, both he and Hanna are in the dark about the investigation. He shot his mouth off and it cost him the only chance he will ever have to become Speaker of the House and second in line for the Presidency.

In you previous post you also made reference to the fall in HRC's popularity and that has what this has been about all the time. Nothing to do with obtaining the facts about Benghazi but more to do with stopping HRC's presidential; bid. The quote from McCarthy is verbatim easily obtained in 30 seconds if you wish to confirm it and his interview with Hannity is plastered all over the internet as well as quoted at length in the Washington Post which you delight in referring to so often.

McCarthy knew the reason for this latest smear attempt and he couldn't wait to tell Hannity about it. In fact it seemed to be what he thought would be something that would secure him the speakers job. This is the back pedal job.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/10/05/kevin-mccarthys-big-benghazi-mistake-was-exactly-what-hillary-clinton-needed/

The fall in Hillary's popularity is because of her own stupidity in using a private email server and her public reactions after it was uncovered..

The only connection with the Select Committee in this regard is that the Committee is the only investigation that discovered her stupidity. All other Congressional inquiries failed to notice she had a private server.

Her private server is germane to the Benghazi investigation since her deletion of some 30,000 emails she described as personal in nature, you know, recipes, Chelsea's wedding, et al.

What she was saying when that infamous 3 AM phone call came in at 5 PM Washington time and what comments were bouncing back and forth on the cover-up would seem to be rather important to everybody...even Democrats such as yourself.

This Committee has been trying since its inception to get access to her emails. The Obama administration, State Department and her own erasure of so called "private" emails have slowed the release of her emails to a trickle.

And that, kind sir, is exactly why we are still discussing this Committee.