I spent
some hours over the weekend listening to Thursday’s Benghazi hearing testimony
of Hillary Clinton. I’m just a curious American. I’ve been waiting for three
years so far to find out what happened in Benghazi, why it happened, and why we
got told things that weren’t true about what happened.
I’m not a
prosecutor, but I have some confidence in Rep. Trey Gowdy’s abilities to get at
the truth. At last. Yes, there have been multiple hearings. As the Democrats on the committee told us multiple times. In fact, in these
hearings, the Democrat committee members refrained from asking questions to
Hillary Clinton and instead directed attacks at the committee head, Trey Gowdy—reminding
us how many previous investigations there have been, and that this one has spent
millions of dollars, and so far has found nothing, they claim. Rep. Elijah Cummings,
pointed out in his opening comments, before questions had been asked of Ms.
Clinton, that the committee hadn’t learned anything. Not
helpful.
 |
| Rep. Trey Gowdy during committee hearing Oct. 22, 2015 image from C-SPAN |
During the
entire questioning, no Democrat asked Hillary Clinton a useful question, with
the possible exception of one that allowed her to go through the timeline of
what happened in Benghazi that fateful night. Not that the committee needed her
testimony for that; she wasn’t there, and the timeline of what happened on the
ground was fairly well established—there’s a movie on the subject about to come
out. But at least it showed that she was aware of enough details at this point,
three years after the fact, to relate them.
There are
a few points I noticed, and I’m wondering about. Sometimes I wonder why the
media took no notice. Sometimes I wonder what Trey Gowdy knows.
One thing
Rep. Gowdy said in an interview afterward, which I didn’t realize, was that he hadn’t subpoenaed Hillary
Clinton to testify. She had been asked, and was willing. But that may mean that
Trey Gowdy didn’t need her testimony at all, but was willing to use the
opportunity as backup to what he knows from other sources. And there's always the chance he can add a perjury charge or two.
He also
said that he had given her the option to do the testimony in private or public.
Since her testimony wasn’t essential, he could go either way. But he prefers
private for several reasons. One is that the testimony can cover classified
information safely—in fact, if such questions come up in a public hearing, they
must be held and asked later in private. Another is that the person testifying
is often more likely to be candid in private, so the committee gets better information.
In
addition, in private hearings, the Democrats do none of the pontificating they
do in public; they ask questions. It may be that their questions are designed
to allow the testifiers to show themselves in the best light, but at least they’re
questioned. They don’t, at all, direct criticism at the committee chair. When
they do that in public, therefore, it is merely Democrat theater, and in no way
relates to an attempt to find the truth, which is pretty obvious if you’re
watching for reasons like mine.
So, if you
want to go through this (links below), or any future, public hearing more
quickly, simply fast forward through any Democrat questioner; you will miss
nothing germane.
I was
surprised to see that Hillary Clinton still claims the anti-Muslim video, which was
never relevant to Benghazi, a fact known the day of the attack, was a possible
cause they were concerned about with good reason. She emailed her daughter, and
she told the President of Libya and the Prime Minister of Egypt, indicating
clearly within 24 hours that she knew
the video had nothing to do with the attack. They knew the attack was planned
ahead, by an al-Qaeda-like organization, with names (Ansar al-Sharia) that
proved to be involved.
She
carefully parsed her words, and made sure the committee understood how
carefully she had parsed them, when she said, “Some say…” that the video
was the cause. She didn’t say she said so, just that some straw man said so.
She and the administration did lead Susan Rice to declare on five TV interviews
that the video was the cause, and spokesman Jay Carney to say the video was the
cause. And the President said it multiple times, and Clinton herself said it
several times—including when she met with families of the deceased and assured
them that the makers of the video would be prosecuted, but did not promise that
the actual known attackers would be prosecuted. So, using the phrase “some say…” doesn’t exactly explain why this known falsehood kept getting repeated.
 |
| After three years, we still don't know what happened at the Benghazi consulate compound Map found here |
She kept
trying to make it sound like that possibility was worth pursuing.[i] The video was claimed to
be the cause of a spontaneous demonstration in Egypt—that’s what we were told
that day—by the administration in response to that event, prior to the Benghazi
attack hours later. In fact, Clinton claimed in her testimony Thursday that the
video had been shown on Egyptian television, and that is why they feared it had
farther reach and might spread.
But, if I remember correctly, that obscure video wasn’t the cause of the riot in Egypt;
that was a preplanned event, weeks ahead, and announced the day before in the
Egyptian press, in an attempt to release the Blind Sheikh. That the administration went video
shopping was revealed in emails obtained in 2014 through a FOIA request
persisted by Judicial Watch.
So the
planned riot in Egypt had nothing to do with a video. And therefore it was an
absolute known fact that the video had nothing to do with the Benghazi attack.
Hillary Clinton knew this without question, and she just lied about it under oath.
One of the
questions is why the ambassador was in Benghazi, known to be unsafe, when he
had repeatedly requested greater security, since his installation as Libyan
ambassador in May 2012. If it wasn’t safe in Tripoli, and was much less safe in
Benghazi, what was he doing there? Hillary Clinton claims it was his call, but
he was looking into whether a consulate should be opened in Benghazi.
Since
within a month after the attack I’ve heard speculation that the administration
was involved in gun running, and that was the purpose for the ambassador and
the CIA to be in Benghazi, to see to a deal. This was verified in testimony in June, with the speculation Clinton could be subject to treason charges.
I was
surprised when this came up in the hearing. It was a blip. Clinton claimed that
of course the administration wanted to see that weapons got into the right
hands; all administrations would do so. So, in essence, she admitted that what had until recently been called a bizarre “conspiracy
theory” is true, but she said it with an “of course” that led the media to let
it go, as if we all knew and accepted this detail all along.
I don’t
know what to make of this. I don’t know what Trey Gowdy makes of it either. But
gun running is not a normal duty of an ambassador, and is particularly unwise
in a country without an established secure government.
Speaking
of lack of secure government, she admitted that the security personnel at the
consulate were unarmed. She claimed this was normal. It is practice for consulates
to trust security of the perimeter to the host country. But why would this
would be the practice in a country in which even the citizens wouldn’t trust a
weak or non-recognized government to protect them?
She kept
saying that it was never recommended that the Libyan embassy be closed. She was
sure if Ambassador Stevens had thought it necessary, he would have said so. But
she fails to take responsibility for the ignored requests for increased
security.
In an uncomfortable moment, she laughed at the enterprising spirit of the ambassador for “fire
sale” shopping—collecting barricades and other safety equipment from nearby
closing embassies, since he wasn’t getting anything in response to his
requests. (I think there were around 800 requests.) Despite her opening
statement that she took responsibility, she said handling security requests was
below her pay grade; underlings were tasked with handling security, and they
never saw it necessary to bother her about the ambassador’s requests. We do not
yet know why these people over security failed to answer the calls. Clinton
tried blaming Congress for failing to provide funding, but that seems pretty
empty. I'm assuming the committee is following up with the security division she referred to. There's may be among the subpoenaed materials the State Department has yet to provide.
She claims
that Ambassador Stevens was a personal friend of hers. But there were zero
emails between him and Clinton. She answered that by saying that she didn’t
provide him an email address. And she didn’t do much business by email; she
didn’t even have a computer in her office. The line of questioning about emails
to her from Sidney Blumenthal (which were her emails, only recently revealed, and all related to Benghazi and Libya) showed that
he had full and complete access to the Secretary of State, even though he had
been refused any official status by the White House. But her “friend,” Chris
Stevens, got no access.
She said
she used phonecalls and other communications. So she was asked whether she had
talked with Chris Stevens by phone after he was made ambassador to Libya. She
answered that she was sure she had. On what occasion? When? She couldn’t
recall. She was reminded that her phone logs show no calls between her and the
ambassador. She shrugged that off as meaningless. He had a direct line to the
State Department and could have called at any time. Again, ignoring the 800 or
so requests for increased security.
It might
be that acquiescing to increased security in Libya would have shown Obama's
claim that al-Qaeda was weakened and nearly dissolved to be a lie. That’s an alternative to believing in the gun
running scheme. I suppose both could be true simultaneously.
The reason
she used a private email server is that private communications (i.e., unrelated
to State Department work) are not subject to FOIA requests. She does not choose transparency, even when required by law. But what has been
obtained is evidence that she did official work on that server, including
classified work.
So she is
known to have broken the law concerning making her State Department actions
public. And she is known to have allowed multiple examples of classified
information outside of a secure government location—a serious law every person
with a security clearance understands. She is subject to jail time.
She didn’t
have to testify for this to be known. If there were an explanation that would have exonerated her, she would have provided it. That she did nothing but pretend it was all legitimate may play well in the press, but it will not convince a thorough prosecutor.
We
know that many of the emails and resources subpoenaed have yet to be provided.
The failure to provide requested information is the main reason the investigation
continues. It may also continue because, if she were indicted and convicted in the
near future, the president would pardon her, and there would hardly be an inconvenience in her campaign for president. She must be indicted, with rock solid evidence
to convict. And it must come before she has any chance of becoming president
but close enough to the end of the Obama reign to prevent him from pardoning.
Otherwise she gets away scot-free. And the blood of those who lost their lives continues to cry out for justice.
If you
want to experience the testimony yourself, C-Span has provided the entire day
in four parts:
