Jason Chaffetz has his personal gmail address on his business card. “Hillary Clinton isn’t the only official who uses a non-government email address. A business card obtained by ABC News shows that Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, lists his Gmail address on his official House card. After it was revealed on Tuesday that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton conducted all of her government business from personal email accounts, personal email has been the topic du jour, and Chaffetz is at the forefront. Chaffetz, who chairs the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, announced Tuesday that his panel would join in an investigation of Clinton’s email use. ‘Violations of the Federal Records Act within federal agencies is something we take very seriously,’ Chaffetz said Tuesday in a statement. ‘The House Oversight Committee will work with [Rep. Trey] Gowdy and the Select Committee on Benghazi to further explore Hillary Clinton’s use of personal emails while at the State Department.’ Chaffetz told ABC News that his business card was not paid for with government funds and that Congress is not subject to the Federal Records Act. He said that he uses both a Gmail account and a government email account.”
The House Oversight Committee Republicans, during a hearing on the attacks on the U.S. compound in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012, revealed classified information.
“Gowdy appears to accidentally release CIA source’s name”
Sen. Grassley suggested “political interference” in its investigation should prompt the FBI “to leak” information to damage Hillary Clinton politically. “A hypothetical leak could occur, he said, if officials believed Clinton was not being prosecuted for political reasons. ‘Is there going to be political interference? If there’s enough evidence to prosecute, will there be political interference?’ the Iowa senator asked during a meeting on Friday with the Des Moines A.M. Rotary club, according to a report in the Des Moines Register. ‘And if there’s political interference, then I assume that somebody in the FBI is going to leak these reports and it’s either going to have an effect politically or it’s going to lead to prosecution if there’s enough evidence,’ he said.”
In March, Grassley suggested that the FBI could leak information if the investigation did not lead to an indictment and embarrass the administration. “GRASSLEY: Well, here’s what I think you got to start with, first of all Comey’s got a tenured term. Secondly, you’ve got to realize that in a Bush administration he was asked to do something that he thought was on illegal or unconstitutional and he decided to resign, so I think he’s got a good reputation. The FBI’s got a good reputation. And if they give enough evidence that she ought to be indicted and she’s not indicted then I think something’s going to be leaked from the FBI and the administration’s going to be embarrassed.”
During a February town hall, Grassley stated his belief that “you’re going to get something leaked about how bad she may have been” if the Department of Justice fails to prosecute Clinton. “Let’s suppose that for political reasons they don’t want to do it [prosecute Clinton] even if there’s a lot of stuff against her, but this isn’t made public then you don’t know. But it seems to me that you’re going to get something leaked about how bad she may have been or may turn out to be and then there will be political pressure to prosecute. Or in the meantime, you could have a situation where the Attorney General would say it’s too politically hot, I’m going to appoint a special counsel. And then you put it off for another, I don’t know how long.”
Sen. Harry Reid: “It’s wrong for any senator…to urge a selective leaking of any federal investigation.” “It’s wrong for any senator, especially the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, who deals with these issues day after day, to urge a selective leaking of any federal investigation. The FBI isn’t in the business of disclosing information to appease political operatives.”
So is the GOP’s Benghazi obsession finally over? Not so fast. Despite having already released their findings, Republicans announced today that they would interview yet another witness this week. Even after two years, it seems Republicans just can’t quit their addiction to “investigating” the Benghazi tragedy. The Benghazi Select Committee has now spent more than 7 million in taxpayer dollars in its politically-motivated effort to damage Hillary Clinton. Over the past four years, a total of ten congressional investigations have now looked into Benghazi—and found no evidence wrongdoing by Clinton or the Obama Administration.
But Republicans just can’t let go of their Benghazi conspiracy theories and accept their own findings. And so the never-ending Benghazi Committee continues.
Below is a guide to the findings of the 10 congressional committees that have investigated the Benghazi tragedy—and the Republicans’ nearly four-year obsession:
Committee #1: The Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs
The ten different congressional committees’ involvement in investigating the Benghazi attack began in earnest with Committee #1, the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs, which held a hearing in September 19, 2012. In two months of investigating, Committee #1 held a number of hearings, briefings, and interviews, with a number of witnesses who would later be hauled before a web of other committees to answer the same questions and reject the same right-wing conspiracy theories.
Two months later, on December 30, 2012, Committee #1 released the first public congressional report on Benghazi, called, “Flashing Red: A Special Report on the Terrorist Attack at Benghazi.” By this point, the obsession with Benghazi was well underway.
Committee #2: The House Committee on Armed Services
The same day that Committee #1 held one of the first public hearings on Benghazi, Committee #2, the House Committee on Armed Services held a closed door full committee hearing on the Benghazi attack.
According to House Republicans, Committee #2’s investigation into Benghazi consisted of reviewing hundreds of pages of documents from the Defense Department, holding at least ten classified hearings, numerous hearings with defense and military witnesses, and two open hearings.
Publicly available information about hearings, briefings, and witness interviews held by Committee #2 reveal at least 20 individual witness appearances. Among these witnesses was former Combatant Commander for Africa Command, Gen. Carter Ham, who has appeared 9 times before various committees to discuss Benghazi, including Committee #1, the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs, a subcommittee of Committee #2, the House Committee on Armed Services, Committee #6, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform (twice!), a joint staff interview with Committee #6 (again!) and a subcommittee of Committee #2 (again), and finally, Committee #10, the House Select Committee on Benghazi.
Committee #2 and one of its subcommittees held at least nine joint witness interviews along with Committee #6, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
On April 23, 2013, Chairman of Committee #2, Howard “Buck” McKeon was joined by the Chairmen of Committee #3, the House Committee on the Judiciary, Committee #4, the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Committee #5, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and Committee #6, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, to publish the “Interim Progress Report for the Members of the House Republican Conference on the Events Surrounding the September 11, 2012 Terrorist Attacks in Benghazi, Libya.”
The GOP report peddled a number of the favorite right-wing conspiracies that have since been debunked time and time again. In the executive summary alone the report states that embassy security was approved by Secretary Clinton. It wasn’t. And that talking points were edited to protect the administration. They weren’t. The convenient conclusion reached by the five chairmen based on the “findings” of these committees: “the need for continued examination and oversight” into Benghazi.
After a year and a half of investigation, and following its participation in the joint “Interim Progress Report,” the Republican majority members of Committee #2 published their own “Majority Interim Report: Benghazi Investigation Update,” in February 2014.
Committee #3: The House Committee on the Judiciary
Committee #3, the House Committee on the Judiciary got into the fun when Chairman Bob Goodlatte joined his colleagues from Committee #2, the House Committee on Armed Services, Committee #4, the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Committee #5, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and Committee #6, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, to publish the “Interim Progress Report for the Members of the House Republican Conference on the Events Surrounding the September 11, 2012 Terrorist Attacks in Benghazi, Libya.”
The GOP report peddled a number of the favorite right-wing conspiracies that have since been debunked time and time again. In the executive summary alone the report states that embassy security was approved by Secretary Clinton. It wasn’t. And that talking points were edited to protect the administration. They weren’t. The convenient conclusion reached by the five chairmen based on the “findings” of these committees: “the need for continued examination and oversight” into Benghazi.
According to that report, Committee #3 initiated an immediate inquiry into the Benghazi attack and received private, classified briefings from components of the Intelligence Community.
Committee #3 planned to continue its work after the release of the “Interim Progress Report,” with plans to review the decision to respond to the attacks with an FBI Investigation and keep tabs on the ongoing FBI investigation.
Committee #4: The House Committee on Foreign Affairs
According to House Republicans, Committee #4, the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, began its oversight work related to the Benghazi attack on September 11, 2012. Following the attack, Committee #4 held at least six hearings on Benghazi, including a three hour questioning of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton held the same day Committee #8, the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations held a two and a half hour hearing with the former secretary.
During the course of at least a year and a half investigating the Benghazi attack, Committee #4 reviewed more than 25,000 pages of documents and held hearings, interviews, and briefings consisting of at least 16 witness appearances. Among the witnesses called were a number who were forced to appear before many of the 10 committees to investigate the Benghazi attack. For example, Undersecretary of State for Management Patrick Kennedy, appeared before Committee #4 on September 18, 2013, one of more than 8 appearances he would make before various committees. In addition to Committee #4, Kennedy testified in hearings, briefings, and interviews before: Committee #1, the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs (twice), Committee #5, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Committee #6, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Committee #7, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Committee #8, the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, and Committee #10, The House Select Committee on Benghazi.
In the midst of its ongoing investigation, much of which was already overlapping in witnesses and subject matter with many of the other committees, Committee #4 joined the chairmen of Committee #2, the House Committee on Armed Services, Committee #3, the House Committee on the Judiciary, Committee #5, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and Committee #6, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, to publish the “Interim Progress Report for the Members of the House Republican Conference on the Events Surrounding the September 11, 2012 Terrorist Attacks in Benghazi, Libya.”
The GOP report peddled a number of the favorite right-wing conspiracies that have since been debunked time and time again. In the executive summary alone the report states that embassy security was approved by Secretary Clinton. It wasn’t. And that talking points were edited to protect the administration. They weren’t. The convenient conclusion reached by the five chairmen based on the “findings” of these committees: “the need for continued examination and oversight” into Benghazi.
Finally, after a year and a half of its own investigation, Committee #4’s Majority Republican Staff published a report on February 7, 2014.
Committee #5: The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
According to House Republicans, Committee #5, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, began its Benghazi investigation with Full Committee oversight events with National Counterterrorism Center Director Matt Olsen and former CIA Director David Petraeus on September 13 and 14, 2012.
Committee #5 proceeded to investigate over the course of the next two years, reviewing thousands of pages of intelligence reports, assessments, and emails from before and after the attack. Although operating almost entirely behind closed doors, congressional reports, committee websites, press releases, and facts sheets reveal at least nine hearings held by Committee #5 focused on Benghazi. Between those nine hearings, committee briefings, meetings, and interviews, the committee’s work consisted of at least 26 separate witness appearances, many of them repeats from its own earlier interviews and work done by many of the other committees.
For example, former Deputy CIA Director Michael Morell appeared before Committee #5 on November 15, 2012, May 22, 2013, and April 2, 2014. Morell also testified before Committee #1, the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs and Committee #7, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Similarly, Matthew Olsen, Director of the National Counterterrorism Center, appeared twice before Committee #5 to discuss the Benghazi attacks.
These appearances were on top of hearings and briefings with Committee #1, the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs, Committee #7, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Committee #8, the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, and finally Committee #10, the House Select Committee on Benghazi.
Continuing the theme of overlapping investigations, Committee #5 participated in the April 23, 2013 “Interim Progress Report for the Members of the House Republican Conference on the Events Surrounding the September 11, 2012 Terrorist Attacks in Benghazi, Libya.” The report was coauthored by chairmen of four other committees, including Committee #2, the House Committee on Armed Services, Committee #3, the House Committee on the Judiciary, Committee #4, the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, and Committee #6, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
The GOP report peddled a number of the favorite right-wing conspiracies that have since been debunked time and time again. In the executive summary alone the report states that embassy security was approved by Secretary Clinton. It wasn’t. And that talking points were edited to protect the administration. They weren’t. The convenient conclusion reached by the five chairmen based on the “findings” of these committees: “the need for continued examination and oversight” into Benghazi.
Ironically, it was Committee #5, one of the five committees to participate in the GOP’s “Interim Progress Report,” to publish a final report that debunked a number of Republican’s favorite conspiracy theories. Committee #5’s final report, published on November 21, 2014 (after the establishment of Committee #10, the House Select Committee on Benghazi), was the most extensive at 277 pages. After two years, the committee confirmed there was no intelligence failure prior to the attack, no stand down order to withhold assistance, and no coverup to protect members of the administration.
Committee #6: The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
One of the most partisan, conspiracy-laden investigations was run by Rep. Darrell Issa and Committee #6, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. On a mission to find the administration’s response and investigation of the attack lacking, Committee #6 was one of the first to bring into question Secretary Clinton’s actions and the Accountability Review Board’s legitimacy.
For at least a year and a half, Committee #6 held hearings, briefings, interviews, and meetings, including a whopping 47 witness appearances. As expected, many of the witnesses were dragged in front of Committee #6 multiple times on top of the many other committees that called them in to ask the same questions over and over. For example, State Department Regional Security Officer Eric Nordstrom appeared before the committee three separate times. Nordstrom was also brought before Committee #1, the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs and Committee #7, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.
Another favorite witness of the 10 committees, Combatant Commander for Africa Command, Gen. Carter Ham was also called to appear before Committee #6. Incredibly, one appearance was not enough and General Ham stood before members and staff from the Committee a whopping three times. Ham appeared for a classified briefing, a staff interview for Committee #6 and a subcommittee of Committee #2, the House Committee on Armed Services, and a private meeting with Rep. Jason Chaffetz. Among Ham’s 9 total appearances also included appearances with Committee #1, the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs and Committee #10, the House Select Committee on Benghazi. Similarly, former ambassador Thomas Pickering, who served as Chairman of the Accountability Review Board was called for a hearing and deposition with Committee #6. Those appearances were in addition to classified briefings with Committee #4, the House Committee on Foreign Affairs and Committee #8, the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations.
On April 23, 2013, then-Chairman of Committee #6, Darrell Issa joined colleagues from Committee #2, the House Committee on Armed Services, Committee #3, the House Committee on the Judiciary, Committee #4, the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, and Committee #5, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence to publish the “Interim Progress Report for the Members of the House Republican Conference on the Events Surrounding the September 11, 2012 Terrorist Attacks in Benghazi, Libya.”
The GOP report peddled a number of the favorite right-wing conspiracies that have since been debunked time and time again. In the executive summary alone the report states that embassy security was approved by Secretary Clinton. It wasn’t. And that talking points were edited to protect the administration. They weren’t. The convenient conclusion reached by the five chairmen based on the “findings” of these committees: “the need for continued examination and oversight” into Benghazi.
In addition to joining in on the partisan “Interim Progress Report,” the GOP staff of Committee #6 published a 99 page report of their own on September 16, 2013, chock full of more conspiracy and innuendo about the Benghazi attacks. As an answer to the GOP side, Committee #6 Democrats presented a status update on its investigation based on tens of thousands of pages reviewed and numerous witnesses interviewed. The documents and interviews debunked right-wing theories about the impartiality and completeness of the Accountability Review Board investigation and the military’s response during the attack.
Committee #7: The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
Committee #7, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, performs the vast majority of its work behind closed doors due to the sensitive nature of material within its jurisdiction. Despite the committee’s anonymous work, it is clear from available reports that Committee #7 held at least three hearings exclusively on the Benghazi attacks, in addition to a number of briefings and interviews with at least 19 witness appearances.
Many of the Intelligence Community and Defense Department witnesses interviewed during the course of the committee’s investigation were favorites of some of the other nine committees. One of the most repeated witnesses over the course of the 10 committees’ various investigations into the attack was Director of the National Counterterrorism Center, Matthew Olsen. In the immediate aftermath of the Benghazi attack, Olsen was called before Committee #1, the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs. He subsequently appeared before Committee #7, Committee #5, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, for both a hearing and classified discussion, and Committee #8, the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. Well over three years after the tragedy in Benghazi, Olsen was called again to answer questions, this time before Committee #10, the House Select Committee on Benghazi.
Former CIA Director, David Petraeus was a witness at a hearing and two briefings for Committee #7. This wasn’t the only committee that felt the need to hear from Petraeus multiple times. Committee #5, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence brought him in for a classified briefing, and a full committee hearing, while the ongoing Committee #10, the House Select Committee on Benghazi, despite waiting until 2016 to question the former director of the CIA, Committee #10 felt the need to bring him in once and then again two months later.
A third witness forced to answer questions at numerous hearings, briefings, and interviews was Undersecretary of State for Management Patrick Kennedy. Kennedy visited the Capitol at least 9 separate times for the various probes into Benghazi. Three months after the attack, Kennedy was a witness at a staff briefing for Committee #7. By this time he had already appeared before multiple other committees, including before Committee #6, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform for a hearing on October 10, 2012, a hearing before Committee #5, the House Permanent Select committee on Intelligence on November 15, 2012, Committee #1, the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs for two committee member briefings, and Committee #8, the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. After all of these appearances, Kennedy was brought back for more questioning by Committee #4, the House Committee on Foreign Affairs in 2013, and nearly three and half years after the tragedy, by Committee #10, the House Select Committee on Benghazi.
After nearly a year and a half of investigating, Committee #7 released its final comprehensive “Review of the Terrorist Attacks on U.S. Facilities in Benghazi, Libya, September 11-12, 2012.” The bipartisan report debunked a handful of right wing myths surrounding the Benghazi attacks and its aftermath. Committee #7 found that there was no stand down order given, “there was no singular ‘tactical warning’ in the intelligence reporting” leading up to the attack that was ignored, and noted that some intelligence suggested the attacks were “put together in short order, following the day’s violent protests in Cairo against an inflammatory video.” All in all, the report issued by Committee #7 debunked a number of the root conspiracy theories driving the right-wing obsession with Benghazi. Republicans, however, were not going to let that stop them.
Committee #8: The Senate Committee on Foreign Relations
Committee #8, the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations got to work investigating the Benghazi attack right away, and performed nearly all of its work in the final few months of 2012. Much like Committee #7, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Committee #8 performed much of its Benghazi-related work in classified settings and out of the public eye. Committee #8 held just two public hearings on Benghazi on December 20, 2012 and a second with Hillary Clinton, who appeared before Committee #4 the House Committee on Foreign Affairs the same day and later endured an 11 hour hearing with Committee #10, the House Select Committee on Benghazi.
In addition to Hillary Clinton, Committee #8’s hearings included witness appearances by Deputy Secretary of State William Burns and Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources Thomas Nides. Like Clinton, both Burns and Nides repeated their testimony before Committee #4, the House Committee on Foreign Relations.
Committee #8 was the first to call Accountability Review Board Chairman Thomas Pickering and Vice Chairman Michael Mullen to testify about their work. Chairman Pickering, was subsequently called back called for a hearing and deposition with Committee #6, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. He also served as a witness for classified briefings with Committee #4, the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. Likewise, following his testimony with Committee #8, Vice Chairman Mullen was called back to the Hill multiple times. Once by Committee #4, the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, and twice by Committee #6, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
Another State Department witness to provide testimony for Committee #8 was Undersecretary of State for Management Patrick Kennedy. One of Kennedy’s nine Benghazi-related appearances before the committees investigating the tragedy came in a classified briefing held by Committee #8 along with other high level State, DoD, FBI, and Intelligence Community witnesses. In fact, all but one of the witnesses called to testify at classified briefings with Committee #8 in the winter of 2012 were later called back to repeat testimony before a number of the other nine committees participating in the numerous investigations. This fact should be no surprise considering many of the witnesses came from the State Department and Republicans had set their sights on using Benghazi to ensure Hillary Clinton could not win the 2016 presidential election almost as soon as the 2012 election was over. Along with Kennedy (Committees #1, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #10), other witnesses at the classified briefing, Director of the National Counter Terrorism Center, Matthew Olsen (Committees #1, #5, #7, #8, #10), Vice Director of Operations at the Joint Staff, Maj. Gen. Darryl Roberson (Committees #2, #5, #7, #8), and Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict, Garry Reid (Committees #2, #5, #8) were all called before a number of the other committees.
Committee #9: The Senate Committee on Armed Services
Unlike its counterpart in the House of Representatives, Committee #9, the Senate Committee on Armed Services, was a relatively quiet participant in the multiple Benghazi investigations. On February 7, 2013, Committee #9 held its only publicly available event concerning Benghazi, a more than four hour hearing titled “Attack on U.S. Facilities in Benghazi, Libya.”
Committee #9’s relatively quiet participation in Benghazi investigations did not exempt its work from being repeated by some of the other committees, especially Committee #10, the Select Committee on Benghazi, still operating well over three years after Committee #9’s hearing. Then-Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta appeared as a witness for Committee #9’s hearing to answer questions about the military’s posture on the day, available intelligence prior to the attack, and the military’s response to the tragedy. Panetta’s testimony that day specifically made clear that the military response was appropriate. Forces were deployed to the region in a timely fashion and the “U.S. Government spared no effort to do everything we could to try to save American lives.”
However, the length of the assault, distance, and lack of adequate warning all impacted the military’s ability to respond to the region before the attack ended.
Despite Panetta and his co-witness, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey, being asked at least 243 questions by members of Committee #9, nearly two years later, and not until after a failed 11-hour show hearing with Hillary Clinton, Committee #10, the House Select Committee on Benghazi found it necessary to relitigate Panetta’s recollection of the attacks and the Obama administration’s military response. During a five-hour meeting with the 10th committee to investigate the Benghazi attack, Panetta again affirmed the military’s appropriate response, and likely echoed his own public statements debunking the right-wing stand down conspiracy.
Likewise, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey followed up his hearing with Committee #9 by providing a briefing with a subcommittee of Committee #2, the House Committee on Armed Services.
Committee #10: The House Select Committee on Benghazi
Committee #10, the House Select Committee on Benghazi became one of the most notorious select committees in history even before its establishment on a near-party line vote. Despite nine other committees and seven other congressional investigations, House Republicans pushed for the establishment of Committee #10 to focus exclusively on the Benghazi attacks, and more than two years and over $7 million later, it continues to relitigate conspiracy theories, repeat testimony, and search for some smoking-gun that might bring down Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. Then-leading candidate to replace John Boehner as Speaker of the House, Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy admitted to Committee #10’s motives during a candid moment on Fox News when he explained, “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.”
During its more than two-year investigation, Committee #10 has only managed to hold four public hearings and was roundly criticized by conservatives and liberals alike for wasting money and time while hiding its investigation from the public. Even while keeping the majority of its fishing expedition in the dark, Committee #10 could not hold back from bragging about conducting interviews with high profile witnesses, or better yet, attempting to justify its continuing existence, claiming closed-door interviews were revealing new information not previously learned by nine other committees. It is no surprise Committee #10 sought to highlight the number of “new” witnesses called in for interviews or depositions because most of the appearances it elected to publicize or leak information about had previously testified before one if not multiple of the other congressional committees.
From the Committee’s records it is possible to tell that at least two witnesses were called to appear on two separate occasions, Assistant Secretary for Diplomatic Security Greg Starr who appeared at the first two hearings, and Former CIA Director David Petraeus came back for a second closed-door interview with Committee #10, both more than three years after the attacks.
Of course, Petraeus’ two appearances before Committee #10 were not his only repeat appearances to testify for committees investigating Benghazi. He appeared at a hearing and two briefings for Committee #7, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and at both a classified briefing and full committee hearing before Committee #5, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
From Committee #10’s GOP press releases and leaks to media it is possible to piece together a number of high profiles brought in to repeat testimony provided during the other Benghazi investigations. Among those repeated witnesses included many from the State Department, where Committee #10 focused the vast majority of its work as it searched for something damaging to Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. Of course, Clinton’s 11-hour show trial became an infamous example of the Republican fishing expedition against Hillary Clinton. Only the fourth public hearing held in the more than two year existence of Committee #10, Clinton faced speculative questions, questions about topics other than the Benghazi attacks, and many of the same questions that were asked and answered during her three hour hearing with Committee #4, the House Committee on Foreign affairs and two and a half hour hearing with Committee #8, the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations.
Clinton was only the most high profile State Department employee to return to Capitol Hill after answering questions for the other committees. Among the repeat witnesses are Mark J. Sullivan, Chairman of the Independent Panel on Best Practices (Committees #6 and #10), Todd Keil, a member of the Independent Panel on Best Practices (Committees #6 and #10), Jacob Sullivan, former State Department Director of Policy Planning (Committees #6 and #10), Patrick Kennedy, State Department Undersecretary of State for Management (Committees #1, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #10), Thomas Nides, Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources (Committees #4, #8, and #10), and Charlene Lamb, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for International Programs (Committees #1, #6 (twice), and #10). Committee #10’s obsession with State Department witnesses also included some of Hillary Clinton’s closest aides, Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin.
As Committee #10 began winding down its investigation and realized the obsession with Hillary Clinton and the State Department had not yielded any smoking gun, it desperately turned to the Department of Defense and military. After cancelling planned hearings with former Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Secretary Leon Panetta, and abandoning plans for interviews in April and June 2015 with military witnesses including Panetta, General Carter Ham, and National Counterterrorism Center Director Matthew Olsen. Finally, after the failed, 11-hour hearing with Hillary Clinton, a desperate Committee #10 elected to bring in Secretary Panetta to create an appearance of legitimacy. The problem was, like the committee as a whole, Secretary Panetta’s testimony with the Committee was merely a relitigation of his earlier testimony with Committee #9, the Senate Committee on Armed Services. Similarly, Combatant Commander for Africa Command, Gen. Carter Ham was not called to talk with Committee #10 until after Hillary Clinton’s hearing. Moreover, General Ham’s testimony was inexplicably delayed until June 8, 2016, more than a year after its intention to bring him in by June 2015. Of course, aside from bringing General Ham before the committee in a timely manner, Committee #10 likely could have referenced one of his many appearances, including a number of repeats, before the other committees (Committees #1, #2, #6, and #10). Director of the National Counter Terrorism Center, Matthew Olsen also came back to answer some of the same questions he faced during previous investigations, (Committees #1, #5, #7, #8, and #10).
All in all, Committee #10 spent more than 2 years and more than $7 million in taxpayer dollars calling in repeat witnesses, asking questions over and over, and operating as a Republican opposition research shop searching for a smoking gun to damage Hillary Clinton. Despite pleas to work together and issue a comprehensive bipartisan report highlighting the findings of more than two years of investigation, Republicans on Committee #10 refused. Democrats were excluded from drafting the report and were not allowed to review the facts presented before it was released to the media and public.The end result of all this time and money spent was a leaked, partisan report that found “no new evidence of wrongdoing by Hillary Clinton.” Moreover, the report “does not fundamentally alter the public’s understanding of the attacks,” instead echoing the findings of 7 previous congressional investigations and nine other congressional committees involved in getting answers about Benghazi. Committee #10 did nothing to justify its work as one of the longest-running, most partisan, most expensive, and least-active select committees in history.
]]>]]>
Benghazi Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy refused to allow the Democrats on the Committee to participate in the writing of the report, making this one of the most partisan Select Committee reports ever. While Gowdy wouldn’t explicitly name Clinton in his remarks, his colleagues and the RNC jumped right in, making clear that this “investigation” into a tragedy was always about damaging Hillary Clinton. But with the final report out, it’s now clear that Republicans’ partisan witch hunt has come up empty-handed. The Committee hasn’t just failed to find any new evidence of wrongdoing by Hillary Clinton—it’s actually “exonerate[d]” Clinton and found that she was not to blame for the Benghazi tragedy.
Jon Ramos-Santiago @ItsMeJonRamos The only thing that the Benghazi Committee produced was Paul Ryan as Speaker due an indiscretion by Kevin McCarthy. [6/28/16, 11:00 AM EDT]
Brian Beutler @brianbeutler Benghazi committee findings weren’t incendiary or conspiratorial enough, required a right wing minority report. jordan.house.gov/uploadedfiles
Sarah Westwood@sarahcwestwood First press question to Gowdy: this committee found nothing new about #benghazi, why did you waste taxpayer money? [6/28/16, 10:37 AM EDT]
Jennifer Bendery @jbendery Most bizarre thing about this Benghazi press conf is Gowdy, who spent 2 years on this, won’t assign blame to anyone (esp Clinton). [6/28/16 10:51 AM]
Ryan Struyk @ryanstruyk After Gowdy tries to avoid linking Benghazi report to ’16 race at presser, RNC reaction mentions Clinton five times.
Mark Murray @mmurraypolitics Q to Gowdy on House Benghazi report: “Was this the best use of taxpayer dollars? ” Gowdy: “I am actually proud of what we found” [6/28/16, 10:39 AM EDT]
Steve Benen @stevebenen The Benghazi Committee didn’t investigate a scandal. The Benghazi Committee was the scandal on.msnbc.com/298E1W4 [6/28/16, 11:32 AM EDT]
Joshua Hersh @joshuahersh I covered Benghazi pretty closely back in 2012 and it’s striking to see how little new of consequence has emerged since then. [6/28/16, 11:00 AM EDT]
]]>
Trey Gowdy admitted this week that the military couldn’t have gotten to Benghazi in enough time to save American lives, confirming that the Benghazi Committee — the eighth congressional investigation into this tragedy — is based on nothing but politics. Now, House Republicans are using procedural maneuvers to try to keep secret the amount of wasted taxpayer dollars spent on duplicative ‘investigations.’ But this isn’t surprising. Gowdy and Benghazi Republicans have repeatedly gone out of their way to withhold documents, hold secret meetings, refuse to make transcripts public and limit document access to Democrats and to the American public. This latest stunt just proves that they are trying to hide something. The American people deserve to see the full cost of the eight Benghazi investigations to the Department of Defense, which should be spending our taxpayer dollars on more important things like protecting our country.
House Republican Leadership Withheld Full Cost of Benghazi Investigations from the Public
House Republican leaders ruled an amendment that would have exposed the full cost burden of Benghazi investigations on DoD, “out of order.”
Trey Gowdy Limited Democrats’ Access to Transcripts
GOP members of the Benghazi Committee issued new rules prohibiting Democratic members and staff from receiving their own physical and digital copies of witness interview transcripts.
Trey Gowdy’s new rules may violate House procedures requiring “equitable treatment” for both sides regarding “the accessibility of committee records.”
Trey Gowdy Began Withholding Documents Even Before Questionable New Rule
Rep. Cummings: “Republicans are so desperate to keep us from sharing these facts with the public, they denied Democrats any access to some of these witness transcripts for weeks.”
Trey Gowdy Refused to Publicly Release Documents
Trey Gowdy refused to release emails handed over to the Select Committee.
Trey Gowdy Fought to Keep Testimony Behind Closed Doors
Trey Gowdy initially argued there was no alternative to a private interview with Hillary Clinton to discuss her emails.
Benghazi Committee Republicans rejected Cheryl Mills’ request for public testimony.
Trey Gowdy Rejected Every Request to Make Transcripts Public
Rep. Cummings called on Trey Gowdy to release full transcripts of all witness interviews and depositions conducted by the Benghazi Committee.
Trey Gowdy refused to release the Sidney Blumenthal deposition transcript despite calls from committee members.
Trey Gowdy reneged on plans to hold a vote on releasing the Blumenthal transcript despite prior assertions that a public business meeting would be held for the vote.
Benghazi Committee Republicans voted together to keep Blumenthal’s deposition transcript secret after Rep. Cummings forced a vote on the issue during Hillary Clinton’s public hearing.
Trey Gowdy refused to release the transcript of the Cheryl Mills interview despite calls from committee members.
Trey Gowdy Held Secret Witness Meetings, Excluding Democrats
As of January 2015, Benghazi Committee Republicans had held at least 5 secret witness interviews without a Democrat in attendance.
]]>It is time for this politically-motivated waste of taxpayer dollars of an ‘investigation’ to end. Chairman Gowdy finally gave up one of the primary GOP conspiracy theories and admitted the facts: the military could not have gotten to Benghazi in time to save American lives that tragic night. It is clear beyond the shadow of a doubt that this Committee was truly designed to go after Secretary Clinton and nothing else. It is time for the Benghazi Committee to end this wasteful charade.
These revelations undermine a key element of the Republican talking points on the Benghazi tragedy. Chairman Gowdy’s decision to ignore his own top lawyer’s statements from January further reveal his partisan motivations and undermine the credibility of the Republican-led Benghazi Committee.
“The conclusions made by the former top GOP attorney are in line with the findings of the previous investigations: there was no wrongdoing done by the Obama Administration. It has become abundantly clear that this prolonged investigation has been nothing more than a political witch hunt to attack Secretary Hillary Clinton, at the expense of American taxpayers.
See the full letter here and below:
Washington, D.C. — Today, Correct the Record President Brad Woodhouse released the following statement marking the two-year anniversary of the House Select Committee on Benghazi.
This un-happy anniversary marks two years of wasted taxpayer dollars–$6.8 million, or around $8,000 every day of its existence–on a never-ending political smear campaign that House Republicans have asked us to call the House Select Committee on Benghazi. As House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy admitted, this effort was not designed to find ways to prevent tragedies like this from happening again; it was designed to politically attack Secretary Hillary Clinton. Yet, the Committee has come up empty. In 24 months, what has this committee done besides waste everyone’s time and money?
“This is further proof that the Select Committee on Benghazi is nothing but a taxpayer-funded, politically-motivated effort to discredit Secretary Clinton in her effort to become the next President of the United States,” said Brad Woodhouse, President of Correct the Record. “Chairman Gowdy and the rest of the Republicans on the Committee are not concerned about the facts, the amount of time they are wasting for our men and women in uniform who have far more important things to do, or how many millions of taxpayer dollars they are throwing away as they hunt for conspiracy theories. One can only imagine what their final ‘report’ is going to look like.”
]]>“Trey Gowdy’s open endorsement of a campaign opponent of Hillary Clinton’s and his starring role in an ad that compares Marco Rubio to Hillary Clinton removes the last smidge of any perceived objectivity that Gowdy may have had,” said David Brock. “Gowdy must resign as Chairman of the Benghazi Committee. He has thrown himself into the middle of the presidential campaign and aligned himself with one of Clinton’s GOP opponents. This conflict of interest is appalling and the American people are tired of Gowdy playing politics with this tragedy.”
]]>