Boehner names Trey Gowdy chairman of Benghazi select committee

posted at 2:41 pm on May 5, 2014 by Allahpundit

He’s got fifteen years of prosecutorial experience at both the federal and state levels. (Fun fact: I was watching an old episode of “Forensic Files” on HLN a week or two ago and who popped up onscreen but a young, dark-haired Trey Gowdy, discussing a murder case he’d won in South Carolina.) He’s also been out in front of the caucus in accusing the White House of Benghazi cover-ups: He’s the man who claimed last summer that they’d been giving CIA agents linked to the incident new identities to hide them from House investigators, and he told Greta Van Susteren just a few days ago that he has evidence that the White House is deliberately withholding documents related to the attack.

Boehner’s statement:

“With four of our countrymen killed at the hands of terrorists, the American people want answers, accountability, and justice. Trey Gowdy is as dogged, focused, and serious-minded as they come. His background as a federal prosecutor and his zeal for the truth make him the ideal person to lead this panel. I know he shares my commitment to get to the bottom of this tragedy and will not tolerate any stonewalling from the Obama administration. I plan to ensure he and his committee have the strongest authority possible to root out all the facts. This is a big job, but Rep. Gowdy has the confidence of this conference, and I know his professionalism and grit will earn him the respect of the American people.”

Smart politics twice over. Part of the reason Boehner agreed to the select committee was to unify the party ahead of the midterms; after Ben Rhodes’s e-mail became public, refusing to form a committee would have been another flashpoint between the party establishment and the grassroots to go along with amnesty and increasingly tepid opposition to ObamaCare. It stands to reason that if you’re going to do something to placate your base, you might as well choose a conservative in good standing for chairman too. If he’d appointed a centrist and the committee came up with nothing, righties would have accused him of a whitewash. They can’t do that with Gowdy in charge, and if Gowdy comes up with nothing too, then Boehner can distance himself from it by saying it was largely a tea-party production all along.

The other reason it’s smart politics is that not only is Gowdy a respected prosecutor, he’s consistently one of the most dynamic members at House hearings. (You’ve watched enough clips of him on this site to know that.) Boehner doesn’t know what he’s going to get by way of evidence but he will insist on some political payoff from this ahead of the midterms, and Gowdy’s just the guy to deliver that. You want clips of John Kerry or Hillary Clinton sweating under a tough cross-examination to dominate the day’s news cycle on cable? He’ll do that for you better than virtually anyone else.

One question, though. Will Democrats participate in the committee? Here’s Adam Schiff telling Chris Wallace yesterday on FNS that he thinks the party should boycott. I hate to admit it but that’s sound strategy. They’re taking a risk in doing it: If the GOP turns up compelling evidence of Obama’s or Hillary’s negligence on the night of the attack, the fact that Democrats refused to take part in the investigation will make them look complicit in the cover-up and whitewash. If the GOP doesn’t turn up something compelling, though, the boycott will make it easier for Democrats to argue that it was a kangaroo court all along that the public should either pay no attention to or actively punish Republicans for organizing. In fact, Dems can cite their boycott as a reason for the public to downplay or ignore any evidence that Gowdy does uncover. E.g., “We knew Republicans would be grossly unfair to the administration and blow their findings out of all proportion. That’s why we didn’t participate.” It’s a way to delegitimize the effort, which is the whole ballgame for them right now.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Viator on May 5, 2014 at 2:58 PM

Beat me to it.

Gee, I wonder what happened to the story at The Hill? Maybe they got a “rocket” from the WH Press Office.

novaculus on May 5, 2014 at 3:23 PM

…I’m going to make a lot of popcorn!

KOOLAID2 on May 5, 2014 at 3:23 PM

Hey, just in case any progressives didn’t get the memo, you are supposed to use the term “conspiracy theory” or “conspiracy” at least once in every social media post about Benghazi.

forest on May 5, 2014 at 3:19 PM

And “racism” and “homophobia,” don’t forget those…

Lourdes on May 5, 2014 at 3:23 PM

urban elitist on May 5, 2014 at 3:09 PM

Nailed it brother! Watergate was a cover-up, this was nothing more than a little misdirection at worst. …and unlike Watergate – which was done purely in the quest for power – the Youtube angle was done only for the good of the American people. Sure, four dudes died, but that’s a drop in the bucket compared to the millions of Americans who would have probably died under a President Romney.

But I guess millions of dead Americans with no healthcare is no big deal to teabaggers.

Frank Lib on May 5, 2014 at 3:23 PM

It’s been 18 months. The Republicans are still obsessing about Sunday morning TV appearances. It’s fairly clear a) that there’s nothing of note in that particular line of thinking and b) the Republicans only care about the dead Americans insofar as they are convenient props for hammering Hillary. If they cared, they’d be obsessing over the policy and tactical decisions that got people killed, not a set of talking points.

urban elitist on May 5, 2014 at 3:23 PM

Part of the reason Boehner agreed to the select committee was to
get amnesty for mexicans and muslims, ASAP

burrata on May 5, 2014 at 3:24 PM

Hopefully Lindsay Graham has Trey’s back.

can_con on May 5, 2014 at 3:25 PM

Trey Gowdy was a prosecutor if I’m not mistaken.
Listening to his phrasing of questions to witnesses, he was a very good one at that. Being from South Carolina I have words of caution to the Beltway Bandits who will try to (how shall I put this?) discourage Mr. Gowdy from his duty. Poke at a South Carolinian and they will fire the first shot. I give you Ft. Sumter which the Carolinian Cannon Cockers turned into a pile of rubble in short order.

Missilengr on May 5, 2014 at 3:19 PM

Hope he gets Louis Gohmert on his committee…He’s from Texas and used to be a judge.

workingclass artist on May 5, 2014 at 3:25 PM

Finally John wants to win the 2014 and 2016 elections. Now we don’t need a moderate republican to be our nominee for president in 2016, cause all democrats will be left to win for the democrat nominee will be weak candidates.

This will kill off Hillary running for president.

BroncosRock on May 5, 2014 at 3:25 PM

I like Gowdy and I’m glad he’s heading up the committee…BUT…I’ve been disappointed by the Republicans too many times in the past, especially the last five or so years, to get overly excited about this. I’m hoping but I want action not words so let’s see what you’ve really got there Trey. Show me.

Oldnuke on May 5, 2014 at 3:25 PM

urban elitist on May 5, 2014 at 3:09 PM

Not sure I’ve seen such flow-blown hackery from this one before. Usually a little more “nuanced.” Select Committee and Gowdy must have hit a raw nerve.

de rigueur on May 5, 2014 at 3:25 PM

Carney appeared to be hinting at the daily press briefing that the White House might not co-operate.

That would be interesting, wouldn’t it?

Drained Brain on May 5, 2014 at 2:52 PM

Let them try it. Gowdy won’t tolerate defiance of subpoenas. I’m sure he has made that perfectly clear to Boehner.

Congress has the power to enforce compliance, even to arrest and jail administration officials who fail to comply, and Gowdy is just the man to do it.

novaculus on May 5, 2014 at 3:27 PM

I listened to Schiff twice on FoxNewSunday and IMPO, he was mostly pure, unadulterated spin. His suggestion of Dem boycotting the Select Committee was one of few things he said that seemed remotely reasonable, from his/their perspective; but, as pointed out in the column, above, there is the risk that the Committee finds truly daunting evidence of the coverup and the Dems’ Game is over in total flames. Dick Morris’ claim this morning of Hillary uttering the essence of the Rhodes email 36 hours before Twerp Rhodes’ email is a timely starting point for her responsibility.

johncorn on May 5, 2014 at 3:27 PM

If the GOP turns up compelling evidence …

Isn’t the Ben Rhodes email the compelling evidence that makes this the political play by the Dems that they expect to attach to a solely Republican Select Committee?

That email along with what Greta said about Hillary writing something about the video at 10pm the night of the attack- that’s the compelling evidence. After 20 months it was compelling enough to get cry-baby Boehner to finally get serious and appoint Gowdy and the select committee.

C’mon man!

beselfish on May 5, 2014 at 3:29 PM

That’s cute, you think Democrats will show up

Eva D. Struktion on May 5, 2014 at 2:55 PM

That’s cute, you think they can delegitimize the undeniable truth once it is exposed.

novaculus on May 5, 2014 at 3:29 PM

Not sure I’ve seen such flow-blown hackery from this one before. Usually a little more “nuanced.” Select Committee and Gowdy must have hit a raw nerve.

de rigueur on May 5, 2014 at 3:25 PM

They always tell us what they fear.

Oldnuke on May 5, 2014 at 3:29 PM

Does Gowdy still support Dreamers/Amnesty?

tomshup on May 5, 2014 at 3:30 PM

If they cared, they’d be obsessing over the policy and tactical decisions that got people killed, not a set of talking points.

urban elitist on May 5, 2014 at 3:23 PM

Ah, posted too soon at 3;25 PM. NOW comes the nuance: “If they [Gowdy, et. al.] cared [about the 4 left to die in Benghazi], they’d be obsessing over the policy and tactical decisions that got people killed, not a set of talking points.”

I’m sure policy and tactical decisions are very much on Gowdy’s menu– as soon as he cuts through the lies.

de rigueur on May 5, 2014 at 3:30 PM

urban elitist on May 5, 2014 at 3:09 PM

Ahhh the talking points must have been distributed.

If there is nothing to hide, why is the WH still hiding information?

gophergirl on May 5, 2014 at 3:17 PM

The prize inside this box of Cracker Jacks is the impact on the independent voter.

Its all a matter of what and how much is heard by a relative handful of not-too-bright, not-paying-attention supremely important swing voters.

The “nothing to see here, folks- move along, move along” will be repeated endlessly.

And loudly.

Dolce Far Niente on May 5, 2014 at 3:32 PM

In this instance, my hackery is on par with Boehner’s. he throws a bone to the tea party in hopes of getting on with real business, and I laugh at the obviousness of it

I have political fears, this bit of stagecraft-to-be is not one of them.

urban elitist on May 5, 2014 at 3:33 PM

I give you Ft. Sumter which the Carolinian Cannon Cockers turned into a pile of rubble in short order.

Missilengr on May 5, 2014 at 3:19 PM

pssst…….The CSA lost that war…..just sayin’.

BobMbx on May 5, 2014 at 3:34 PM

This is a desperation move for j.b…He’s below 50% here in ohio and I sincerely hope he goes down. It wasn’t too long ago he was not in favor of a committee,now all of a sudden,he’s tired of the admin. not moving on this???

That is not to say anything against Trey Gowdy,I have always been impressed with him,he says what he thinks and will do the digging on this.

libertygal on May 5, 2014 at 3:36 PM

Watergate didn’t have a body count attached to it.

When the hand picked Ambassador of the US gets assassinated in an act of war and you try to cover that up and blame America’s use of First Amendment rights as the reason it happened… no that sort of cover-up isn’t Watergate, that’s for sure.

This ain’t no Watergate.

It’s the Hoover Dam.

ajacksonian on May 5, 2014 at 3:36 PM

I hate to admit it but that’s sound strategy.

I disagree. Look at how Rep Cummings has been able to tie the IRS investigation in knots. He floated some BS about liberal groups being targeted and it became a meme that won’t go away no matter how many times it’s been debunked. He was able to do that because he was INSIDE the investigation so his claims carry some weight.

If the Dems fleebag, they will be outside the process. They will not be able to frame the questions asked or have any input into where the investigation goes. More importantly, anything they leak will be either ignored or cause to accuse them of withholding evidence from the select committee.

rcpjr on May 5, 2014 at 3:37 PM

INCOMING, incoming, over the target!

CoffeeLover on May 5, 2014 at 3:37 PM

Troy Gowdy better hope he has no skeletons in the closet. He’s already said way too much about having any pertinent information on Bengazi which is kinda silly. The regime is going to go after him with no holds barred

Eva D. Struktion on May 5, 2014 at 3:00 PM

Thanksk for your concern. Mind spelling his name correctly. Points will be deducted.

katy the mean old lady on May 5, 2014 at 3:38 PM

If they cared, they’d be obsessing over the policy and tactical decisions that got people killed, not a set of talking points.

urban elitist on May 5, 2014 at 3:23 PM

Diagnosis first, then treatment. When treating an abcess, sometimes you have to curette some necrotic tissue away before it will drain properly..

butch on May 5, 2014 at 3:38 PM

Gowdy never lost a prosecuting case

Glad he got the nod. I don’t expect any of the administration to cooperate though….when have they? And the media will never hold this current administration accountable. I’ll be surprised if they cover 30 seconds of it…if they do…it will be a GOP ‘witch hunt’

Redford on May 5, 2014 at 3:39 PM

Did urban forget the TB word.
Slacker……


Trey Gowdy,a knife-in-the-teeth former South Carolina prosecutor….

But a senior staffer to a Democratic House member who serves on the House Oversight Committee told MailOnline that Republicans aligned with tea party groups – ‘tea baggers,’ he called them – are ‘chasing their tails’ in an effort to tarnish President Obama’s legacy and hamper Democrats’ electoral chances during the fall midterms.

http://weaselzippers.us/185020-senior-dem-staffer-tea-baggers-are-trying-to-tarnish-obamas-legacy-with-benghazi/

MontanaMmmm on May 5, 2014 at 3:41 PM

By boycotting the committee the Democrats are leaving themselves open to being blind-sided. If and when the committee finds something interesting who will be there to explain away its significance? After all, the only people there will be Republicans. Plus, there won’t be anyone there to take up half the day disrupting the proceedings.

Fred 2 on May 5, 2014 at 3:41 PM

If he’d appointed a centrist and the committee came up with nothing, righties would have accused him of a whitewash. They can’t do that with Gowdy in charge, and if Gowdy comes up with nothing too

How likely is that? It’s pretty obvious there’s a whitewash, and the Whitewash House is desperate to change the subject.

There may yet be a risk of backfire if the Whitewash House and the media are able to convince the public that this is just partisan politics. But there’s almost no chance that a properly rigorous investigation will come up dry.

There Goes the Neighborhood on May 5, 2014 at 3:42 PM

Smart politics twice over. Part of the reason Boehner agreed to the select committee was to unify the party ahead of the midterms; after Ben Rhodes’s e-mail became public, refusing to form a committee would have been another flashpoint between the party establishment and the grassroots to go along with amnesty and increasingly tepid opposition to ObamaCare.

Oh, you mean Boehner’s thrown detractors a bone by agreeing to the select committee? Because that is what this reeks of.

Boehner should have made this decision a long time ago. This grants him some slack on exactly nothing.

Marcus Traianus on May 5, 2014 at 3:43 PM

Speaking as someone with a bit of experience, I can tell you cross-examination of witnesses who are trying to conceal the truth requires a special skill-set.

Gowdy is clearly well-equipped for the job.

novaculus on May 5, 2014 at 3:45 PM

Obsessing over this Benghazi thing won’t put Republicans in seats in the upcoming elections – voters don’t give a shit about this. This whole ordeal is embarrassing for both the Administration and the Fox News politicians who won’t let it rest once and for all.

BUT BUT BUT 4 DEAD AMERICAN PATRIOTS!!!!

There is nothing left to the story except to fill air-time on Fox News. And Hot Air posts. And everyone knows how influential those Hot Air blog posts are!!

atheist on May 5, 2014 at 3:45 PM

“Unleash the KRAKEN!”

H@LL YEAH! I love this guy because he simply ‘don’t play’. A former prosecutor, he hates the partisal B$, hates the political games, and simply wants the truth. When Lerner gave her own testimony before then, ‘illegally’, attempted to claim Diplomatic Immunity then got up and fled the Congressional Committee chamber he was loudlyinsisting that she be stopped, brought back, and forced to testify. He correctly pointed out she gave up her right to claim the 5th, and if it was up to HIM he would have had the guards stop her and drag her back to her chair! HUAH!

I can’t wait until he gets his committee rollin’…

“I’ll TELL YOU why it matters FORMER Secretary of State Clinton….”
- “Where were you during the 12 hours during which time the 1st Ambassador in over 30 years was murdered, along with 3 other Americans?”
- “Where were you during the 6 hours we had no idea where Ambassador Stevens was?”
- “The Benghazi compound was attacked TWICE in the 3 months leading up to the 9/11/12 attack, the last one leaving a 4 foot hole in the wall of the compound. Stevens and his staf submitted numerous requests for additional security and even warned if a 3rd coordinated attack would result in his death — where were you on this? Why wasn’t additional security provided? Did it have anything to do with the CIA gun-running to Islamic Extremists in Syria? If the answer is ‘because we didn’t have the money to do so’ why don’t YOU explain to the deceased members’ families how that was / is an acceptible answer?”

- “Why, CURRENT Secretary of State Kerry, did the Department of State withhold an e-mail titled ‘Benghazi’ from Congress when Congress asked for ALL documents related to Benghazi? You, sir, get to name the indivuidual who will go to jail for violating our subpoena.”
– If you are not going to punish the person / persons within YOUR agency responsible shouldn’t you, as Secretary of State, be held responsible?”

I hope he ‘rams it up’ and ‘breaks it off’!

easyt65 on May 5, 2014 at 3:46 PM

Sounds like locating the witnesses might be the hardest part. If the CIA is deliberately hiding witnesses to avoid subpoena, aren’t they subject to punishment for contempt?.

butch on May 5, 2014 at 3:49 PM

With four of our countrymen killed at the hands of terrorists, the American people want answers, accountability, and justice. Trey Gowdy is as dogged, focused, and serious-minded as they come. His background as a federal prosecutor and his zeal for the truth make him the ideal person to lead this panel. I know he shares my commitment to get to the bottom of this tragedy and will not tolerate any stonewalling from the Obama administration. I plan to ensure he and his committee have the strongest authority possible to root out all the facts. This is a big job, but Rep. Gowdy has the confidence of this conference, and I know his professionalism and grit will earn him the respect of the American people.

He was awarded the Postal Inspector’s Award for the successful prosecution of J. Mark Allen, one of “America’s Most Wanted” suspects.

Schadenfreude on May 5, 2014 at 3:49 PM

Gowdy wouldn’t have been so successful as a prosecutor if he took cases to trial with the hope something would turn up. I suspect he has something in his pocket already – beyond the damning e-mail that we already know about. It would also explain why Boehner had the cojones to finally do this.

forest on May 5, 2014 at 3:51 PM

atheist on May 5, 2014 at 3:45 PM

I’m hearing some faint whistling sounds coming from a poor soul walking past a graveyard in the dark. How can you possibly know what will be found?

butch on May 5, 2014 at 3:52 PM

You want clips of John Kerry or Hillary Clinton sweating under a tough cross-examination to dominate the day’s news cycle on cable? He’ll do that for you better than virtually anyone else.

I remember watching the Watergate hearings during summer of ’73. It was enthralling. I was living close enough to where I was working to race home with my co-workers to eat lunch and watch Sam Ervin start tearing apart Nixon’s men. Ervin was imminently quotable.

It was blockbuster watching with its breaking news.

The hearings made stars out of both Ervin, who became known for his folksy manner and wisdom but resolute determination, and Baker, who appeared somewhat non-partisan and uttered the famous phrase “What did the President know, and when did he know it?” (often paraphrased by others in later scandals)….Many of Watergate’s most famous moments happened during the hearings, including John Dean’s “cancer on the Presidency” testimony and Alexander Butterfield’s revelation of the existence of the secret White House Nixon tapes.

Ervin was from NC. It’s fascinating to me that now we’re going to have another Carolinian, this time from SC, in charge of this committee. Southerners can talk, and Gowdy will hold people’s interest to Benghazi the same way Ervin did to Watergate.

INC on May 5, 2014 at 3:53 PM

The e-mails that Judicial Watch received were NOT given to the Congressional Committees looking into Benghazi. It took a private, citizen run organization to get the goods that Obama was withholding from Congress. It holds evidence of misleading Congress and the American People about the nature of the attack in Benghazi which puts citizens and federal employees in the State Dept. at risk by not informing them of the actual facts so that measures could be taken against immediate threats. Namely AQIM and its wide theater of operations from Iraq and Yemen to Morocco.

All to hide the failure of a policy and the act of war that had taken place so as to win an election.

That is not a ‘nothing’ or partisan witchhunt: that is putting the US and its citizens at risk for personal gain.

ajacksonian on May 5, 2014 at 3:54 PM

and if Gowdy comes up with nothing too

I can’t see Trey Gowdy putting himself in the middle of this if he didn’t have solid evidence to pursue a charge of wrongdoing by the Obama admin.

lineholder on May 5, 2014 at 3:56 PM

Obsessing over this Benghazi thing won’t put Republicans in seats in the upcoming elections – voters don’t give a shit about this. This whole ordeal is embarrassing for both the Administration and the Fox News politicians who won’t let it rest once and for all.

BUT BUT BUT 4 DEAD AMERICAN PATRIOTS!!!!

There is nothing left to the story except to fill air-time on Fox News. And Hot Air posts. And everyone knows how influential those Hot Air blog posts are!!

atheist on May 5, 2014 at 3:45 PM

If you believe that sincerely, you should be cheering on Trey Gowdy and his investigation. Chasing this rabbit should be very damaging for the GOP if voters don’t care and its so embarrassing for those “Faux News politicians” (incredibly clever, that. Did you think that up by yourself?).

2014 should be a Dem landslide, in that case.
Right?

Dolce Far Niente on May 5, 2014 at 3:59 PM

atheist on May 5, 2014 at 3:45 PM

There’s such a thing as truth and justice for those who died, and for those who lived through the terror of that night.

Speaking of which, were are the survivors? It’s as if they vanished into thin air. This is one of many questions that needs to be answered.

Where was Obama? What was he doing when people died? Why wasn’t he in the Situation Room. Who gave the order to stand down?

“What did the President know, and when did he know it?”

INC on May 5, 2014 at 3:59 PM

I’m glad that Trey Gowdy was picked.
I’m skeptical in regards to the reasoning for him being picked. When was the last time Boehner did something that excited the conservative/tea party wing of the caucus? I cant think of a single time, but I may be forgetting a time.
There are 23 other former prosecutors in the House (I couldn’t find their names or which party they’re in). Why didn’t Boehner pick someone like Issa, or someone that is more in line with him? Did Boehner really pick the best man for the job (my opinion, he couldn’t have done much better)? When was the last time Boehner did that? Is Boehner trying to create a distraction while he tries to pass immigration? Is Boehner trying to keep his speakership by uniting the caucus? Is Boehner trying to excite the base for the midterms (when was the last time he did that)? I’m really skeptical in regards to this choice.

A few other questions. Does Gowdy get to pick the rest of the committee? Does Gowdy get to pick the attorney for the case? I’d want Louie Gohmert and Jason Chaffetz on the committee. Andy McCarthy would be a good pick for the attorney, but he’s got a big book that’s about to come out.

ritewhit on May 5, 2014 at 4:00 PM

Jason Chaffetz said if you held up the same documents received through Issa’s committee with its counterpart received through Judicial Watch, there were differences in areas of redaction and levels of classification. I’m not sure what he meant by classification differences. I do know they tried to retroactively classify some of this when they realized what was on it.

butch on May 5, 2014 at 4:03 PM

Gowdy says he’s got something. Boehner wouldn’t allow this if there wasn’t something there already. If he wanted to conduct a fishing expedition, there have been plenty of opportunities already. This time it’s different. They’ve got something.

Mallard T. Drake on May 5, 2014 at 4:03 PM

urban elitist on May 5, 2014 at 3:09 PM

A Guinea Worm

Frank Lib on May 5, 2014 at 3:23 PM

A mini-Bishop

urban elitist on May 5, 2014 at 3:23 PM

The Guinea Worm, again

Schadenfreude on May 5, 2014 at 4:04 PM

To paraphrase Chrissy Matthews, the thought of Trey Gowdy throwing down on Hillary Clinton gives ME a tingle up my leg!

ConservativeMom on May 5, 2014 at 4:05 PM

One of the best “finds” will be what Obama was doing as the attack was occurring. If they have testimony that he was upstairs watching TV or something similar, that will be devastating. Dereliction of duty, out of touch, uncaring, coward. All of that will land on him.

Mallard T. Drake on May 5, 2014 at 4:06 PM

butch on May 5, 2014 at 4:03 PM

Katharine Herridge of Fox uncovered this. They redacted the e-mail addresses in the documents they gave to congress.

They left the names in, as the judge ordered them, in the same docs, the batch they had to hand over to Judicial Watch.

They pissed off Boehner so badly, by their contempt for the congress, that he put Mr. Gowdy to go after the foxes.

It’s not ever fun when there are good Americans who died, for the stinky bunch in the WH and related.

But this will be highly interesting.

Schadenfreude on May 5, 2014 at 4:07 PM

Speaking of which, were are the survivors? It’s as if they vanished into thin air. This is one of many questions that needs to be answered.

INC on May 5, 2014 at 3:59 PM

I recall from months ago that “some witnesses” to the Benghazi attack appeared before Congress but that their names and testimony were not released to the public because of their “classified” jobs or involvements…

Anyone else recall this? Perhaps Gowdy, et al., already have damning testimony available to them as to what happened at Benghazi and…

Lourdes on May 5, 2014 at 4:10 PM

My above quote on Watergate was from Wiki. Here’s a very interesting statistic.

Some 319 hours were broadcast overall, and 85% of U.S. households watched some portion of them.

The Benghazi Committee has the makings of the reality show of the decade.

The Dems are being idiotic if they don’t get on board and start working to help get to the truth. They’re going to shoot their political ambitions to bits.

It’s highly, highly ironic that Hillary worked as staff for the House Judiciary Committee on the Watergate investigation. We’ve now come full circle, and she will be under the lights.

She didn’t fare too well with Watergate either. It’s also ironic that Hillary was fired as staff:

Jerry Zeifman, a lifelong Democrat, supervised the work of 27-year-old Hillary Rodham on the committee….Zeifman fired Hillary from the committee staff and refused to give her a letter of recommendation – one of only three people who earned that dubious distinction in Zeifman’s 17-year career.

Why?

“Because she was a liar,” Zeifman said in an interview last week. “She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.”

INC on May 5, 2014 at 4:10 PM

Lourdes on May 5, 2014 at 4:10 PM

You’re right. There was private testimony. I think even the committee only only knows a few names of the survivors. Evidently others have signed some sort of confidentiality docs. Coercion at its best.

INC on May 5, 2014 at 4:13 PM

One of the best “finds” will be what Obama was doing as the attack was occurring. If they have testimony that he was upstairs watching TV or something similar, that will be devastating. Dereliction of duty, out of touch, uncaring, coward. All of that will land on him.

Mallard T. Drake on May 5, 2014 at 4:06 PM

I read somewhere recently that it was admitted by *someone* (I now can’t recall who said this, where, when, no link, just something I read in passing a few days ago, maybe a week ago) said that Obama was being coached on his fundraising speech on that night (of Benghazi) and, thus, wasn’t attending to the disaster occurring (because he had some “speech coaching” appointment to keep, pending his next-day fundraiser in Las Vegas).

I dunno, but it’s also a question many want answered, as to where Obama was that night and why he wasn’t attending to the lives of Americans under violent threat in Benghazi.

Lourdes on May 5, 2014 at 4:13 PM

It’s highly, highly ironic that Hillary worked as staff for the House Judiciary Committee on the Watergate investigation. We’ve now come full circle, and she will be under the lights.

She didn’t fare too well with Watergate either. It’s also ironic that Hillary was fired as staff:

Jerry Zeifman, a lifelong Democrat, supervised the work of 27-year-old Hillary Rodham on the committee….Zeifman fired Hillary from the committee staff and refused to give her a letter of recommendation – one of only three people who earned that dubious distinction in Zeifman’s 17-year career.

Why?

“Because she was a liar,” Zeifman said in an interview last week. “She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.”

INC on May 5, 2014 at 4:10 PM

Yeah, I read that, too, and agree. Hillary, like Bill Clinton, is a highly polished liar. Her head-bobbing and emotional displays give her away, though.

Lourdes on May 5, 2014 at 4:16 PM

The NSA is digging for dirt on Gowdy as we speak.

jnelchef on May 5, 2014 at 4:23 PM

Lord, forget about me winning the lottery. Just let the committee turn up incredibly damning evidence on O and Hillary. (and Valerie Jarrett, if it’s not too much trouble)

SkyKing on May 5, 2014 at 4:25 PM

It’s been 18 months. The Republicans are still obsessing about Sunday morning TV appearances. It’s fairly clear a) that there’s nothing of note in that particular line of thinking and b) the Republicans only care about the dead Americans insofar as they are convenient props for hammering Hillary. If they cared, they’d be obsessing over the policy and tactical decisions that got people killed, not a set of talking points.

urban elitist on May 5, 2014 at 3:23 PM

You mean the policy and tactical decisions that you shrieked were racist and sexist to question, even though they got people killed?

Come, spin boy, keep your stories straight. Your Shrillary shrieked that questioning policies or tactics meant you were a KKK racist who hated women, and you clapped and cheered when she did it.

Have you changed your mind? Or are you just backpedaling because your lies have started blowing up in your face and your stupid and ignorant Obama and Hillary got caught?

Sheesh. You should realize that Hillary is epically stupid, because Barack Obama screamed that he was better at everyone else’s job in his administration than the people he hired to do them. The fact that Barack Obama hired Hillary is proof she’s incompetent and stupid, just like all of Barack Obama’s hires.

northdallasthirty on May 5, 2014 at 4:25 PM

the Youtube angle was done only for the good of the American people. Sure, four dudes died,

Frank Lib on May 5, 2014 at 3:23 PM

I guess you are among the group of people who think that the ends justify the means. How sad for you and yours. When a different party is in power, will you like it when their reason for operating in a dishonest manner is that it is for your own good? I thought not.

2L8 on May 5, 2014 at 4:26 PM

the Republicans only care about the dead Americans insofar as they are convenient props for hammering Hillary. If they cared, they’d be obsessing over the policy and tactical decisions that got people killed, not a set of talking points.

urban effetist on May 5, 2014 at 3:23 PM

Please tell us again what Hillary’s “qualifications” were to be the Junior Senator from New York.

Take your time, you’ll need it.

Del Dolemonte on May 5, 2014 at 4:26 PM

Trey Howdy was picked as the best person to Whitewash this. Mark my words nothing will come of this. Politics ain’t fixing the country.

bgibbs1000 on May 5, 2014 at 4:27 PM

Aren’t these dems screeching that the Benghazi investigation is a waste of time the same folks who encouraged NJ to spend months and millions investigating a lane closure?

LASue on May 5, 2014 at 4:30 PM

. If they cared, they’d be obsessing over the policy and tactical decisions that got people killed, not a set of talking points.

urban effetist on May 5, 2014 at 3:23 PM

Thanks for admitting that your Democrats used false talking points to lie to the American people, solely in order to win the 2012 Presidential election. That’s proof alone that your Party cannot be trusted with national security, because their winning elections is much more important to them than dead Americans, be it 4 or 3,000.

That took a lot of nerve on your part.

A+

Del Dolemonte on May 5, 2014 at 4:32 PM

Lourdes:

Patterico uncovered the White House visitors log which appears to show that three debate coaches met with Obama that day, but no specific times are given. By process of elimination (knowing where Obama was at other times that day), it is likely he was meeting with the three during the initial attack.

LASue on May 5, 2014 at 4:33 PM

I have political fears- first and foremost is that Elizabeth Warren will run against my heroine heroin Hillary.

urban effetist on May 5, 2014 at 3:33 PM

Del Dolemonte on May 5, 2014 at 4:35 PM

And everyone knows how influential those Hot Air blog posts are!!

atheist on May 5, 2014 at 3:45 PM

Thanks for posting at Hot Air. You may have a point in your case.

de rigueur on May 5, 2014 at 4:36 PM

Does Gowdy still support Dreamers/Amnesty?

tomshup on May 5, 2014 at 3:30 PM

Shshshshshsshsh!!!! You’re ruining everything.

Wigglesworth on May 5, 2014 at 4:36 PM

the Republicans only care about the dead Americans insofar as they are convenient props for hammering Hillary. If they cared, they’d be obsessing over the policy and tactical decisions that got people killed, not a set of talking points.

urban effetist on May 5, 2014 at 3:23 PM

It seems your people are actually giddy with excitement that Killery + Hussein could kill 4 white men on 9/11 anniversary ,
and get away with it .
So how do you celebrate the brutal murders of 4 white men by muslims who used weapons provided by Hussein ?

burrata on May 5, 2014 at 4:38 PM

Well we shall see where this goes but Trey Gowdy being in charge makes me happy. I hope the Dems boycott. I don’t want them running interference for the WH and its flunkies.

magicbeans on May 5, 2014 at 4:38 PM

There have been plenty of political based television shows that have done well in the ratings that had less potential intrigue than this has the ability to hold. It may make for great reality television.

Tater Salad on May 5, 2014 at 4:39 PM

Obsessing over this Benghazi thing won’t put Republicans in seats in the upcoming elections – voters don’t give a shit about this.

atheist on May 5, 2014 at 3:45 PM

LOL! The most recent Quinnipiac Poll proves you to be a poorly-paid DNC Liar.

That poll shows that a majority of Americans say that your Cult Leader and his regime deliberately misled the American people on this. And that number went up by 11 points in just over 1 year.

When Quinnipac is bought up by Faux News, please get back to us, so we can laugh at you even more.

F-

Del Dolemonte on May 5, 2014 at 4:40 PM

Gold, from Guinea Worms

Schadenfreude on May 5, 2014 at 4:44 PM

Btw, the guy who said “dude” to Bret Bair, was obama’s driver when he was a senator, no kidding. Those are his ‘adviser’ qualifications.

Schadenfreude on May 5, 2014 at 4:45 PM

Lourdes:

Patterico uncovered the White House visitors log which appears to show that three debate coaches met with Obama that day, but no specific times are given. By process of elimination (knowing where Obama was at other times that day), it is likely he was meeting with the three during the initial attack.

LASue on May 5, 2014 at 4:33 PM

Here’s the link:

http://patterico.com/2014/05/02/obama-did-debate-prep-on-september-11-2012-the-day-of-the-benghazi-attack/

He’s added several updates, including this one which was not there when I looked at the post the other day:

MAJOR UPDATE: A reader has just confirmed that a user can save a data set and give it any name they wish — meaning that the “3 meet with Potus” language may have been generated by a user and cannot be considered authoritative. The data is accurate: Obama’s debate prep guy Ron Klain and two other debate prep people visited to conduct “debate prep.” But it can’t be ruled out that the “debate prep” was for Biden.

A reader links to this interesting post which shows the President and Biden together, out of the decision-making loop, taking calls from Netanyahu and such, from 6:30 to almost 7:30 p.m.

We still don’t know where Obama was after that. All we know is: he was not in the Situation Room.

The embedded link has another piece of the puzzle and is worth reading.

INC on May 5, 2014 at 4:46 PM

At least we know where Bush was during 9/11 when 2,977 Americans were murdered on our own soil!!

(he was staring blankly in a kindergarten classroom, remember?)

I bet Obama was watching basketball – get the impeachment hearings started, STAT.

atheist on May 5, 2014 at 4:47 PM

Lourdes:

Patterico uncovered the White House visitors log which appears to show that three debate coaches met with Obama that day, but no specific times are given. By process of elimination (knowing where Obama was at other times that day), it is likely he was meeting with the three during the initial attack.

LASue on May 5, 2014 at 4:33 PM

OK, thanks for that. I couldn’t place my memory-finger on just where/when/from whom I read that, so, thanks, again: Patterico!

Lourdes on May 5, 2014 at 4:47 PM

Unfortunately, controlling Dept of Just-Us makes stonewalling the investigation laughably easy. How many battalions does the Congress command, after all?

Rix on May 5, 2014 at 3:01 PM

About the same number as John Mitchell commanded.

Barnestormer on May 5, 2014 at 4:50 PM

Boehner has been dragging his feet as much as he can, this is strange, Trey Gowdy is a pitbull, I suspect Boehner has something to hide.

oscarwilde on May 5, 2014 at 3:01 PM

Boehner and Michael Rogers both have blood on their hands from suppressing the investigation so far. Boehner, as speaker, is second in line behind Biden, and undoubtedly has received briefings in this capacity. Rogers, as Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence is privy to all kinds of inside information. Both have dragged their feet on this as long as was humanly possible.

bofh on May 5, 2014 at 4:52 PM

…White House visitors log which appears to show that three debate coaches met with Obama that day, but no specific times are given. By process of elimination (knowing where Obama was at other times that day), it is likely he was meeting with the three during the initial attack.

LASue on May 5, 2014 at 4:33 PM

AND we heard “The Dude” say just the other day that HE was in the Sit. Room and Obama “wasn’t there” during Benghazi attack, so…

I also recall having read a long while ago that Obama was “upstairs asleep” or something.

Not like he wanted to worry his pretty little head about the lives of Americans under violent assault or anything, got that fundraising trip to-marrah, got to get the beauty rest. First another martinin…

Seriously (end to sarcasm, above, preceding paragraph): Obama appears to be an expert criminal in that he’ll never place himself, or admit to being near, anywhere he needs to deny knowledge of later. Applies to Benghazi, applies to him during those mysteriously undefined college years, applies to just about anything about him that he needed to deny or laugh about later: Bill Ayers’ living room, Ayers and wife as associates…

Lourdes on May 5, 2014 at 4:52 PM

At least we know where Bush was during 9/11 when 2,977 Americans were murdered on our own soil!!

(he was staring blankly in a kindergarten classroom, remember?)

atheist on May 5, 2014 at 4:47 PM

And he was holding the book upside down too, right?

Please tell us how you would have had Bush prevent those attacks from happening-in a manner that you and your fellow Democrats would have approved of at the time.

Then we can laugh at you some more, OK?

Del Dolemonte on May 5, 2014 at 4:53 PM

I bet Obama was watching basketball…

atheist on May 5, 2014 at 4:47 PM

Sure. With Reggie, most likely.

bofh on May 5, 2014 at 4:55 PM

bofh on May 5, 2014 at 4:52 PM

Michelle Bachmann referred to having heard, as Committee member, classified testimony about Benghazi but the Left ridiculed her for being nonsensical for even being in Congress, or something.

It’s a case of the Left just writing “LOL” about whatever and whomever when they can’t, or won’t, address the issues. Or reality.

Lourdes on May 5, 2014 at 4:55 PM

The post at the link Patterico gave in his update is over a year old, but I don’t remember seeing this info before.

The WH schedule points to National Security Advisor Tom Donilon and Denis McDonough, Deputy National Security Advisor, making some critical decisions while Obama and Biden were on the phone with Bibi because they needed to build some pro-Israeli campaign creds.

Here’s the schedule:

(6:30 p.m. D.C.): The Pentagon issues an order to a special operations team in Europe to move to Sigonella, Sicily – less than one hour’s flight away from Benghazi…. [Obama and Biden are now on the phone with Netanyahu] Who is in charge?

(7 p.m. D.C.): The first of two unmanned U.S. Predator drones, which already had been flying over eastern Libya, is diverted to Benghazi, as reported by CBS News’ Sharyl Attkisson and David Martin on Oct. 15. [Obama and Biden are still on the phone with Netanyahu] Who is in charge?

(7:30 p.m. D.C.): A U.S. security team from Embassy Tripoli lands in Benghazi and learn that the ambassador is missing. They try to arrange for transportation into town, with the goal of locating Stevens. [Phone call over - Obama and Biden are being updated by Denis McDonough as per the picture]

INC on May 5, 2014 at 4:59 PM

Sure, four dudes died, but that’s a drop in the bucket compared to the millions of Americans who would have probably died under a President Romney.

But I guess millions of dead Americans with no healthcare is no big deal to teabaggers.

Frank Lib on May 5, 2014 at 3:23 PM

We’re going to nail your messiah to the cross. Don’t worry, it’ll be cool.

magicbeans on May 5, 2014 at 5:46 PM

IT is unbelievable that the Democrats are seriously saying it5 is okay for the President to go on TV and deliberately LIE about foreign policy to the American people!

How did we get to this place where one party simply decides that anything they do is okay no matter how corrupt?

What level of corrupt would not be okay with them? If Obama murdered the Ambassador himself, live on TV, they would still cover for him.

And half the country would look away.

petunia on May 5, 2014 at 5:48 PM

Go get ‘em, Trey!

Jeanettesca on May 5, 2014 at 5:49 PM

One of the best “finds” will be what Obama was doing as the attack was occurring. If they have testimony that he was upstairs watching TV or something similar, that will be devastating. Dereliction of duty, out of touch, uncaring, coward. All of that will land on him.

Mallard T. Drake on May 5, 2014 at 4:06 PM

Finishing up another case study in his online pornography research?

BobMbx on May 5, 2014 at 5:55 PM

I think this is a positive development for both sides of the aisle. For Republicans, it gives them the chance to articulate exactly what charges, if any, should actually and officially leveled against the administration. For the Democrats, then, if it’s all trumped-up conspiracy or partisan politics, they have the opportunity to justify this with finality. Both sides stand to lose, however, if the investigation doesn’t go their way.

CivilDiscourse on May 5, 2014 at 6:01 PM

Lourdes:

Patterico uncovered the White House visitors log which appears to show that three debate coaches met with Obama that day, but no specific times are given. By process of elimination (knowing where Obama was at other times that day), it is likely he was meeting with the three during the initial attack.

LASue on May 5, 2014 at 4:33 PM

Three “debate coaches”? Is that a cock-tongue-in-cheek name for Obama’s favorite kind of visitors?

#gheythread

#BuckFarack

Nutstuyu on May 5, 2014 at 6:33 PM

Remember the crime is lying to the people for the purpose of personal gain (re-election and the continuation of power).

A good investigator will zero in on that and only that. It is a crime, it is provable and it will carry the same punishment as a list of more but less provable offenses.

The Democrats are showing their willingness to go down together to preserve their ways of corruption. Let them have their way. We will be a better County for it.

Take note that this will be the main issue in the 2014 and 2016 elections. At this time nothing else means anything as much as the truth and veracity of our Government.

jpcpt03 on May 5, 2014 at 7:17 PM

For those who missed it, Gowdy was on Greta’s show and delivered a brilliant argument for the necessity for the committee to expose all the facts about Benghazi and let the people make their own judgments.

Gowdy made a formidable (if not explicit) rebuttal of George Will’s position that the committee can’t accomplish anything because it will be portrayed as politically motivated, particularly if Democrats adopt the “fleebagging” tactic.

The facts will speak for themselves. The only failure will be if Congress permits Obama and his tools to hide them from the people.

novaculus on May 5, 2014 at 7:25 PM

Lourdes:

Patterico uncovered the White House visitors log which appears to show that three debate coaches met with Obama that day, but no specific times are given. By process of elimination (knowing where Obama was at other times that day), it is likely he was meeting with the three during the initial attack.

LASue on May 5, 2014 at 4:33 PM

Barry can’t be subpoenaed, but the three debate coaches can.

slickwillie2001 on May 5, 2014 at 7:42 PM

If the dems don’t participate, they won’t be able to leak damaging testimony days in advance, which is their MO. They also won’t be able to rehabilitate any witnesses

matthew8787 on May 5, 2014 at 7:44 PM

” I don’t give a damn who’s careers it destroys

Trey Gowdy is up to speed and ready to raise hell.

wolly4321 on May 5, 2014 at 8:06 PM

This has elements of hands overplaying written all over it.
It won’t end well.

weedisgood on May 5, 2014 at 8:10 PM

This has elements of hands overplaying written all over it.
It won’t end well.

weedisgood on May 5, 2014 at 8:10 PM

Clutch your pearls at the back of the line dopefiend.

Murphy9 on May 5, 2014 at 8:25 PM

This has elements of hands overplaying written all over it. It won’t end well. weedisgood on May 5, 2014 at 8:10 PM

Utube Trey Gowdy and watch a few clips.

He ain’t joking.

wolly4321 on May 5, 2014 at 8:33 PM

weedisgood on May 5, 2014 at 8:10 PM

Naturally you’re referring to the ridiculously over-play “it was the video” talking points put out by the White House which has resulted in 44% of Americans believing that the Obama Administration lied to them about the Benghazi attack.

Naturally this will only get worse. And end badly for the White House.

de rigueur on May 5, 2014 at 8:40 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3