Long Past Time to End Benghazi Committee
Trudy Rubin – The Philadelphia Inquirer
Consider the most exhaustive of the eight Benghazi reviews, conducted by the Intelligence Committee, which was then chaired by a tough and businesslike Michigan Republican, Mike Rogers, a true conservative.
After nearly two years, the committee’s 2014 report debunked conservative conspiracy theories that claimed President Obama or Hillary Clinton had ordered the military to “stand down” for political reasons, rather than to rescue the beleaguered diplomats and other U.S. personnel.
The report stated bluntly: “The committee found no evidence that there was either a stand down order or a denial of available air support.” As for the administration’s much-maligned “talking points,” the committee concluded they were based on initial CIA assessments that were confused and inconclusive. In other words, there was no deliberate obfuscation.
An interior view of the damage at the U.S. consulate, which was attacked by gunmen in Benghazi. Libya on Sept. 12, 2012. Christopher Stevens, the U.S. ambassador to Libya, and three embassy staff were killed. (Reuters)
State Department Suddenly Discovers 1,300 Pages of Amb Stevens’ Email
John Hayward – Breitbart
For all the Democrat complaints about a “politicized” Republican committee, the simple, irrefutable fact is that we wouldn’t need such a committee if Obama, Clinton, and the rest of this Administration had been remotely honest about what happened in Benghazi.
Wild fabrications were concocted to minimize the political damage to Obama’s re-election campaign, and then one cover-up after another was laid down to avoid admitting to any of it.
Rep. Trey Gowdy’s (R-SC) questions are not the issue. The issue is that he still has to ask them, and almost three years later, relevant documents are still tricking out.
What Should the Committee Focus On
Jonathan S. Tobin – Commentary
The drama that has been unfolding is political in nature, but the force driving it has not been so much a GOP effort to hurt Clinton as a Democratic effort to prevent her from being called to account.
If Gowdy’s committee does its job well, the issue may ultimately turn out to be more one of whether President Obama will stop the Justice Department and the FBI from prosecuting Clinton and her aides for illegal behavior than any partisanship by the House majority. If so, Democrats may ultimately come to see their full court press to defend Clinton and demonize Gowdy as the real political error.
Watch Hillary Clinton’s 2013 Benghazi Testimony
Trey Gowdy, Meet Sam Ervin
Albert R. Hunt – Bloomberg View
Somebody should tell Trey Gowdy about Sam Ervin and Tom Coburn. They could teach him that congressional investigations really can be bipartisan….
Certainly the Benghazi committee, which is scheduled to hear testimony Thursday from former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, has turned into a political football. Democrats, and even a few Republicans, charge that the main purpose is to knock down Clinton, the front runner for her party’s presidential nomination. Gowdy and his allies charge it’s the other side that is politicizing the inquiry….
It does not follow, however, that bipartisan congressional investigations are impossible, even under extreme political pressure. Former Senator Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat, twice investigated the 2008 financial crash and the role played by powerful banks. His tough conclusions, sharply critical of Wall Street and especially Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan Chase, were joined by Republicans, first Tom Coburn of Oklahoma and then Arizona’s John McCain.
Here’s What the Benghazi Committee Is Fighting About Now
Josh Voorhees – Slate
Chairman Trey Gowdy and Rep. Elijah Cummings spent the weekend trading their latest allegations of partisanship, each accusing the other of twisting the facts to serve their own political purposes when it comes to Clinton.
In this Jan. 27, 2015 file photo, the House Select Committee on Benghazi Chairman Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., left, confers with Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., the ranking member on Capitol Hill in Washington at the start of the panel’s third public hearing to investigate the 2012 attacks on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya. (AP)
The latest issue in the ongoing fight was Gowdy’s claim earlier this month that Hillary risked “not only national security but human lives” by sending and receiving the since-redacted name of a CIA source over her private email account—information the Republican claims was “some of the most protected information in our intelligence community.” (The emails in question were sent in March 2011—more than a year before the Benghazi attacks—though they were focused on the situation on the ground in Libya at that time.)
According to Cummings, though, the CIA recently told the panel that it doesn’t even consider the source’s identity to be classified information—something that would appear to make Gowdy’s “most protected” claim difficult to believe.
“The problem with your accusation—as with so many others during this investigation—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,” the Democrat wrote to Gowdy in a letter made public over the weekend. “I believe your accusations were irresponsible, and I believe you owe the Secretary an immediate apology.”