Kerry ducking House Oversight subpoena on Benghazi?

posted at 8:41 am on May 6, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

One would think that Secretary of State John Kerry would welcome an opportunity to talk about anything else other than his own failures, but apparently he’s not keen to talk about those of his predecessor, either. The State Department announced last night that Kerry will not comply with a subpoena from the House Oversight Committee, which demanded an explanation for the failure to produce documentation under a prior subpoena to State. Kerry will be on the road at the time specified, but State offered to make other arrangements (via Drudge):

The State Department said Monday that Secretary of State John Kerry would not appear before the House Oversight Committee on May 21 to talk about Benghazi — as demanded in a subpoena from the panel’s chairman, Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif.

Department spokeswoman Marie Harf said Kerry planned to travel to Mexico at that time and officials would discuss alternative options with the committee.

“We are committed to working with the committee to find a resolution to this that is acceptable to both sides. We were surprised when they didn’t reach out to us before issuing a subpoena for exactly that reason,” Harf said. “And as I’ve noted here, there have been a number of Republicans who themselves, under the previous administration, said a secretary of state should not be subpoenaed.”

State could end up regretting this as an opportunity passed up. Issa has every right to issue a subpoena and expect Kerry to comply, but Issa may have jumped the gun a little, too, by skipping over the niceties of at least inviting Kerry to testify first before going to the big gun of the subpoena. That’s the State gripe in this reply, and the offer to cooperate is an easy play against it. The knock on Oversight is that its focus has been both split between several investigations into the Obama administration and too overtly political for the same reason. This episode adds to the perception.

So why might State regret this response? Kerry might not be anxious to testify before Congress, but he’d do better against Issa than he will against Trey Gowdy, a former prosecutor. Gowdy will head the select committee on Benghazi, which will relieve Oversight of the probe in the near future. Democrats will still claim that the select committee is politicized and talk about “phony scandals,” but this committee will be focused on one task alone — and the panel members will become experts at it. If Democrats don’t participate, then Kerry will eventually be forced to endure nothing but direct interrogation on State’s failure to produce documentation to Congress, as will his subordinates at State. They will find that experience under Gowdy’s governance to be considerably less pleasant than even an Oversight hearing, and potentially a lot more dangerous in the legal sense.

Kerry will be small potatoes in this probe, anyway. The select committee wants to expose the cover-up, but Kerry’s role in that (if any at all) will be minor and ex post facto. This probe aims at the White House and Kerry’s predecessor, and their attempts to cleanse themselves of responsibility just weeks ahead of a national election through fraud and lies.


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

He’ll be on his yacht in international waters avoiding congressional jurisdiction, and taxes.

NotCoach on May 6, 2014 at 8:44 AM

I look forward to when (D)s are allowed to care about this sort of thing again.

rogerb on May 6, 2014 at 8:45 AM

Defund his department.

CurtZHP on May 6, 2014 at 8:49 AM

@notcoach..mebbe he’ll spend Christmas in Cambodia, ya reckon?

The War Planner on May 6, 2014 at 8:50 AM

I want to see Gowdy in action. This should be interesting.
The issue at hand is far worse than the precedent setting Nixon investigation.
Maybe it will make it to the sequel of Forrest Gump.

Connecticut on May 6, 2014 at 8:50 AM

Kerry does hypothetically have the “He’s so, so, so busy doing work as Secretary of State he can’t take the time to testify before the committee” dodge — It’s disingenuous, but the haughty French-looking chief diplomat is employed in a high-position job.

Hillary on the other hand has got all the free time in the world right now, and loves any excuse to visit Washington, D.C. So it will be fun to see if she tries the same tactic, especially against Gowdy’s select committee, where the chairman presumably will be better positioned to ferret out details on his group’s own time, and not wait for Larry Klayman and Judicial Watch to do it for them, as has been the case with Issa’s committee and the most damaging of the Benghazi revelations.

jon1979 on May 6, 2014 at 8:55 AM

@notcoach..mebbe he’ll spend Christmas in Cambodia, ya reckon?

The War Planner on May 6, 2014 at 8:50 AM

More “seared” memories?

NotCoach on May 6, 2014 at 8:55 AM

Hillary on the other hand has got all the free time in the world right now, and loves any excuse to visit Washington, D.C. So it will be fun to see if she tries the same tactic, especially against Gowdy’s select committee, where the chairman presumably will be better positioned to ferret out details on his group’s own time, and not wait for Larry Klayman and Judicial Watch to do it for them, as has been the case with Issa’s committee and the most damaging of the Benghazi revelations.

jon1979 on May 6, 2014 at 8:55 AM

Ten bucks says she’ll claim she’s helping Chelsea get the nursery ready for the little cloven-hooved bundle of joy that’s coming.

CurtZHP on May 6, 2014 at 8:57 AM

Won’t comply because Issa hurt his feelings? I’ll have to recommend that.

katy the mean old lady on May 6, 2014 at 8:58 AM

I don’t see the Select Committee going very far, either. Trey Gowdy is probably the best ‘prosecutor’ in Congress, but he will be facing the best prevaricators, bloviators, equivocators, stonewallers, minimalists, monologue spewing, hubristic, pandering and narcissistic POS’s in history, playing rope-a-dope as only Dhimmicraps can. Should still be a very interesting show, though.

vnvet on May 6, 2014 at 9:02 AM

The State Department announced last night that Kerry will not comply with a subpoena from the House Oversight Committee, which demanded an explanation for the failure to produce documentation under a prior subpoena to State.

Serious question: when has anyone in the executive branch refused to comply with a subpoena from the legislative branch?

We have a lawless federal government. If Dear Liar and his minions don’t believe the law applies to them, it doesn’t apply to me either.

rbj on May 6, 2014 at 9:06 AM

Isn’t he that guy who served in Vietnam?

Galtian on May 6, 2014 at 9:23 AM

Ed, what troubles me is the idea that this select committee is just about the cover up. If that is the only reason that it was formed, then it should never have been. The cover up helped Obama get elected again which is terrible. But the real questions lie in what the real (unofficial) mission was for the Benghazi consulate. Also, what is the true scope of malfeasance that Obama and Hillary demonstrated before and during the attack. This is what I have always wanted to know first, and foremost.

If the select committee is solely about te cover up, then it is overly political and will not move the needle much.

h a p f a t on May 6, 2014 at 9:25 AM

Isn’t he that guy who served in Vietnam?

Galtian on May 6, 2014 at 9:23 AM

I think I remember hearing something about that.

forest on May 6, 2014 at 9:29 AM

Eff the “coverup” meme and the “Obama blamed the video to save face in the elections”. Americans don’t care about that sort of thing and would never buy it as a rationale for impeachment. What they would impeach Obama for is illegally selling weapons to the enemy and permitting an Ambassador and three others to die gruesome deaths while he was getting stoned and then jetting off to a fund raiser.

RobertE on May 6, 2014 at 9:31 AM

What do the polls say about Americans being interested in Benghazi?
This whole “charade” is a subliminal move to get back at Hillary Clinton. Our best best is defeating her in the democratic primary but funding other opponents.
All these “stage shows” by the house will turn off people.
keep overplaying your hand.

weedisgood on May 6, 2014 at 9:41 AM

If you want to see some real ducking, have Trey Gowdy subpeona the Benghazi survivors, wherever they are…

fortcoins on May 6, 2014 at 9:41 AM

Kerry planned to travel to Mexico at that time

“I’ll be in Mexico” is now the Left’s equivalent of…

Lourdes on May 6, 2014 at 9:49 AM

Our best best is defeating her in the democratic primary but funding other opponents.
All these “stage shows” by the house will turn off people.
keep overplaying your hand.

weedisgood on May 6, 2014 at 9:41 AM

“our best bet” and then “your hand”?

It’s tough maintaining masks, isn’t it?

Lourdes on May 6, 2014 at 9:50 AM

The select committee is solely about te cover up, then it is overly political and will not move the needle much.

h a p f a t on May 6, 2014 at 9:25 AM

And the reason the select committee is about the cover up is that there’s just no there, there. At best, you have the fact that what, no one woke up the President during the attack? Or that somehow he should have been able to predict the future? You have the fact that Congress slashed security budget for consulates in general. What else?

I mean, you basically have to already believe that Obama is secretly in league with terrorist groups to see any kind of “scandal” here, except for the lame memo about the video causing the attack. No different than Bush Admin planting stories in the NYT about aluminum canisters and then using those lies on Sunday morning talk shows. As Jon Stewart reminded us, Fox News spent the Bush Administration poo pooing any notion that federal lies about foreign policy was a thing the American people should be mad about. Now they are freaking out over the outrage. See, that’s the other concern for you guys. People remember all the lies Bush told about the war in Iraq, it was less than 10 years ago that all the half-truths and outright lies began to trickle out. And you also forget that lots and lots of people lost loved ones or had loved ones permanently maimed or injured under the lies which brought us to Iraq. No matter how you slice it, 4 American lives at Benghazi pales in the public imagination to the physical and psychological toll of the war in Iraq. Scream about Benghazi all you want, it doesn’t even come close to matching the Bush legacy on foreign policy.

libfreeordie on May 6, 2014 at 9:57 AM

Ed, what troubles me is the idea that this select committee is just about the cover up. If that is the only reason that it was formed, then it should never have been. The cover up helped Obama get elected again which is terrible. But the real questions lie in what the real (unofficial) mission was for the Benghazi consulate. Also, what is the true scope of malfeasance that Obama and Hillary demonstrated before and during the attack. This is what I have always wanted to know first, and foremost.

If the select committee is solely about te cover up, then it is overly political and will not move the needle much.

h a p f a t on May 6, 2014 at 9:25 AM

Try keeping in mind, it wasn’t the misdemeanor burglary that caused Richard Nixon to resign, nor was it the inappropriate sexual activities of Bill Clinton that got him impeached, in both cases, it was the attempted cover-up that really hurt them.

Trey Gowdy was a District Attorney as well as a Federal Prosecutor, the Obama Administration is in some deep doodoo now.

oscarwilde on May 6, 2014 at 10:02 AM

libfreeordie on May 6, 2014 at 9:57 AM

You’re brainwashed.

Mimzey on May 6, 2014 at 10:03 AM

What do the polls say about Americans being interested in Benghazi?

Dave’s Still Not Here on May 6, 2014 at 9:41 AM

The most recent Quinnipiac Poll shows that a majority of Americans say your Cult Leader and his Regime have been Lying about it. And that number is up 11 points in just 12 months.

Please try again.

Del Dolemonte on May 6, 2014 at 10:03 AM

If you want to see some real ducking, have Trey Gowdy subpeona the Benghazi survivors, wherever they are…

fortcoins on May 6, 2014 at 9:41 AM

He has already said he fully intended too.

oscarwilde on May 6, 2014 at 10:04 AM

As impartial and objective non-news-source Jon Stewart told me, Fox News spent the Bush Administration poo pooing any notion that federal lies about foreign policy was a thing the American people should be mad about.

libfreeordie on May 6, 2014 at 9:57 AM

Fixed.

Yeah, I get all of my “news” from a TV comic too.

As for Bush’s “lies” about Iraq, how’s that War Crimes Trial in The Hague working out for you, and why did you guys magically drop War Crime charges against Colon Powell? Just because he endorsed your Cult Leader?

F-

Del Dolemonte on May 6, 2014 at 10:07 AM

libfreeordie on May 6, 2014 at 9:57 AM

You’re brainwashed.

Mimzey on May 6, 2014 at 10:03 AM

No he is not, he is a Marxist 100 percent by knowledgeable choice. He knows that he is lying and obfuscating and he knows exactly why he is doing so. Make no mistake about it, libfreeordie really is as evil as his comments make him appear to be. He is not brainwashed or deceived about the garbage he spouts.

oscarwilde on May 6, 2014 at 10:08 AM

Del Dolemonte on May 6, 2014 at 10:07 AM

So just to be clear. The only metric for telling if a presidential Administration has lied to the public is a War Crimes tribunal before the Hague? No other metric can be used?

libfreeordie on May 6, 2014 at 10:21 AM

It looks as if Kerry is wearing that “lucky hat” on his head. That pompadous sits on his skull like a bad toupee.

onlineanalyst on May 6, 2014 at 10:29 AM

If you want to see some real ducking, have Trey Gowdy subpeona the Benghazi survivors, wherever they are…

fortcoins on May 6, 2014 at 9:41 AM

He must do this. The left will go into fits of hysteria.

dogsoldier on May 6, 2014 at 10:34 AM

And the reason the select committee is about the cover up is that there’s just no there, there.

libfreeordie on May 6, 2014 at 9:57 AM

You left off the “Dude.” And the reason the select committee is about the cover up is that there’s just no there, there, Dude!

A majority of Americans don’t believe you, btw.

de rigueur on May 6, 2014 at 10:34 AM

Scream about Benghazi all you want, it doesn’t even come close to matching the Bush legacy on foreign policy.

libfreeordie on May 6, 2014 at 9:57 AM

This is relativism – and I don’t see that such an argument has value.
It as worthy to sincerely investigate the loss of lives in Benghazi as it is to examine the folly that was the Iraq war.
What is shameful is treating Benghazi as a political opportunity.
The right’s narrative that Obama and his admin cared only about the election and politics in response to this incident. (Some of course are doing some limb walking saying much worse – but fortunately those types are still at work proving Kenya birth theories.)
Now it’s not a hard sell to offer that in the midst of and following the Benghazi attack, political concerns were present at some level. This would of course be true for any admin during an election year. But the irony of the Republican attack is that from the moment Benghazi was first reported, it became almost purely a political opportunity. From Mitt Romney’s first clumsy attempt to pull some bonafides on foreign policy, to Issa’s conclusion-then-investigation committee, all the way through to Godwy getting a booster seat, the Repubs have mostly viewed and treated the deaths of those Americans. Despite the fact that every sober assessment of the incident has proven false all the wild accusations, Benghazi had the right/Obama ragers at ‘hello’. Trey Gowdy is the perfect Sideshow Bob to bring you the next circus act. He’s the mad clown – he’ll grimace, he’ll rage, he’ll pontificate, he’ll tear up…he will put on a good show.
He will continue to look into the eyes of the bereaved he’ll exploit and tell them ‘we will get to the Obama…I mean, bottom of this’.
Meanwhile we should all take comfort that elsewhere there are those (and this includes many Repubs) who will genuinely seek remedies along with policy and security changes to lessen the change that something like this ever happens again.

verbaluce on May 6, 2014 at 10:38 AM

So what has Kerry to fear if they did nothing wrong?

sniffles1999 on May 6, 2014 at 10:39 AM

Libfree– we already KNOW Obama is in league with Muslim Terrorists. There’s nothing to wonder about– we know.

Consider: Obama pushed for Mubarak to be overthrown and the Muslim Brotherhood put in charge of Egypt. The Muslim Brotherhood is the organization that spawned Al Qaeda. Obama almost went to war in Syria…. in support of Islamic terrorists. He overthrew Qaddafi and created a state where Islamic terrorists thrive. He sacrificed our ambassador to those terrorists.

He tells Israel to shut up and let Hamas do whatever they want.

Yeah, Obama is in league with Islamic terrorism. Or he at least is determined to look the other way. There’s no other explanation for his actions.

Vanceone on May 6, 2014 at 10:40 AM

This whole “charade” is a subliminal move to get back at Hillary Clinton. Our best best is defeating her in the democratic primary but funding other opponents.
All these “stage shows” by the house will turn off people.
keep overplaying your hand.

weedisgood on May 6, 2014 at 9:41 AM

Define “subliminal.” I mean later, when the fog clears.

As for the rest, bringing up Benghazi just dropped Hillary’s approval rating by 9 points.

You’re also wrong about the purpose of the Select Committee. Will be interesting to read your reactions when you figure it out.

de rigueur on May 6, 2014 at 10:40 AM

Kerry might not be anxious to testify before Congress, but he’d do better against Issa than he will against Trey Gowdy,

At least he tries, but Issa can run some pretty feckless investigatory hearings. Gowdy will show us how it’s done.

Gowdy will leave the Haughty One twisted and tied up like a pretzel.

petefrt on May 6, 2014 at 10:42 AM

for all the insults and lies by the left
the simple question is this

if obama and his crew did nothing wrong, why are they fighting so hard to not cooperate to find the truth?

so obama was HIDING in the personal quarters so as to not being on record in the SITUATION ROOM. Legal hair splitting to duck

his RESPONSIBLITIES AS COMMANDER IN CHIEF.

inadequate security,
not sending any help
issueing stand down orders
coverup and lies to win an election.
what was going on in benghazie, more illegial weapons running by the obama admin?

Oh and Hillary is up to her ears in lies, she knew what happened and lied.

will Hillary have more medical issues when she gets a subpeona?

How sick is she, if too sick now to testify, that means her poor health stops her from running for president.

sniffles1999 on May 6, 2014 at 10:44 AM

Kerry ducking House Oversight subpoena on Benghazi?

Short answer, no.
This trip was on the books prior to the subpoena. They scheduled him to testify without checking his schedule or notifying the Dept of State that the subpoena was coming.

I am not fan of John Kerry, but it is hard to look at this objectively and claim that he is ducking a hearing by taking a previously scheduled trip.

One could argue that the subpoena should take precedence over a previous engagement, but I don’t see anyone making that argument. I think that would be a better track, rather than making up innuendo out of whole cloth.

airupthere on May 6, 2014 at 10:45 AM

let the dems duck the hearings, it will only prove they are accessories after the fact, conspiracy to hide the truth of the criminal neglect by obama.
and the cover up to win an election.

sniffles1999 on May 6, 2014 at 10:46 AM

What do the polls say about Americans being interested in Benghazi?
This whole “charade” is a subliminal move to get back at Hillary Clinton. Our best best is defeating her in the democratic primary but funding other opponents.
All these “stage shows” by the house will turn off people.
keep overplaying your hand.

weedisgood on May 6, 2014 at 9:41 AM

And who said pot doesn’t cause paranoia?

NotCoach on May 6, 2014 at 10:50 AM

At best, you have the fact that what, no one woke up the President during the attack?

The attack occurred around 9:30pm or so Libya time. That would make it around 3:30pm EST. He wasn’t sleeping.

Or that somehow he should have been able to predict the future?

Future notwithstanding, he could have sent in troops regardless of how long the fight may have lasted, but he didn’t.

You have the fact that Congress slashed security budget for consulates in general.

The budget cuts would have taken effect the following year. They did not affect the consulates in 2012.

I mean, you basically have to already believe that Obama is secretly in league with terrorist groups to see any kind of “scandal” here, except for the lame memo about the video causing the attack.

That was your idea not anyone else’s (about the president). The “lame memo about the video causing the attack” speaks volumes about the administration trying to cover up their botched foreign policy.

No different than Bush Admin planting stories in the NYT

I find it hard to believe that Bush would be able to plant stories in the NYT. A link would help.

People remember all the lies Bush told about the war in Iraq

All the lies that Clinton and the Democrats before him created?

And you also forget that lots and lots of people lost loved ones or had loved ones permanently maimed or injured under the lies which brought us to Iraq.

Again, Democrats spoon fed us those lies that brought us to Iraq, libfree.

Mark Boabaca on May 6, 2014 at 10:51 AM

Oh please, Verbaluce. It wasn’t the Republicans who went around claiming that the United States was responsible for Benghazi–it was Obama. It was his administration that started this whole “It wasn’t terrorism, it was a protest!” thing. The Obama administration claimed for weeks it was a spontaneous protest.

1) It’s a total lie, and they knew it the entire time.
2) What, do they think we are all idiots? Oh, wait–they rely on idiots to get elected, so yes.
3) What, exactly, does that say about their view of the average Muslim–that they are animals who just happened to carry rocket launchers to a protest? Sheesh. Bigotry, to be sure.
4) They did nothing–absolutely freaking nothing– for weeks (WEEKS!) after the attack to even investigate or secure the site. How much damaging material did the Islamic terrorists get? You and your kind just excuse him for this criminal negligence.

And we haven’t even gotten to politics and why Obama was so desperate to claim a protest–desperate enough that he openly conspired with a Presidential debate moderator to blatantly throw the debate!

We haven’t touched on 1) why was the CIA there? 2) Why was our ambassador there that night? 3) why was there a total lack of security–on 9-11 no less? 4) Why did the military get rebuffed when they asked to help? 5) what was the meeting with the Turkish ambassador about? 6) Why did Obama and Hillary just sleep during this attack against the United States? 7) Why have liberals been screaming “There’s no there there!” so stridently? Really? None of these questions are worthy of discussion?

Nixon had the decency to resign. Obama will never resign; indeed I have strong doubts he will even leave office at the end of his term.

Vanceone on May 6, 2014 at 10:53 AM

If Democrats don’t participate, then Kerry will eventually be forced to endure nothing but direct interrogation…, as will his subordinates at State. They will find that experience under Gowdy’s governance to be considerably less pleasant than even an Oversight hearing, and potentially a lot more dangerous in the legal sense.

I expect Gowdy will turn any boycott against them, making them seriously regret they didn’t have any voice on the committee.

So when they threaten boycott, I say: Bring it!

petefrt on May 6, 2014 at 10:53 AM

Issa should have attempted to coordinate the testimony with Kerry’s staff. This is just basic courtesy. Sec State did the right thing by offering an alternative date when they refused the subpoena.

Kerry may be of a mind with Obama’s imperial lawlessness, but this isn’t an example of it.

Immolate on May 6, 2014 at 10:54 AM

Despite the fact that every sober assessment of the incident has proven false all the wild accusations…

verbaluce on May 6, 2014 at 10:38 AM

Wait. You mean the report of the Accountability Review Board with 4 of its 5 members hand-picked by Hillary Clinton? The one that took 8 months to interview 4 State Department officials who’d been placed on leave as a result of Benghazi? The one that fails to cite any documentary evidence for its conclusions? The fact that it unloads on two lower-level bureaus while failing to address any decisions made at the higher levels of the State Department– such as Hillary’s level? The one that leaves about a gazillion questions ignored and unanswered?

Or the report of Harry Reid’s U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence?

Or the non-existent CIA investigation, despite the fact that two of its employees were killed in the Benghazi attack and at least two complaints filed by its employees to investigate?

de rigueur on May 6, 2014 at 11:03 AM

Vanceone on May 6, 2014 at 10:53 AM

Your comment is a good illustration of the wild trajectory of accusations.
You start with the charge that the admin was responding politically due to election concerns, and then with barley a breath you move from that to wide open conspiracy themed questions.
Why was the CIA there?
Why was the Ambassador there?

Why don’t you tell us why.

verbaluce on May 6, 2014 at 11:08 AM

de rigueur on May 6, 2014 at 11:03 AM

Like Vanceone above, you’ll offer a conspiracy based answer to every sober one offered.
Hillary Clinton rigged the ARB, you say? And that must’ve happened because they didn’t conclude that Hillary was a criminal who should be jailed.
/
Vanceone has also concluded that ‘Obama is in league with Muslim Terrorists’.

It’s just become so silly it’s sad.

verbaluce on May 6, 2014 at 11:14 AM

Why don’t you tell us why.

verbaluce on May 6, 2014 at 11:08 AM

Why doesn’t the Administration tell us why? The fact that we don’t know demonstrates the problem.

airupthere on May 6, 2014 at 11:14 AM

Kerry could destroy the Admin and Hillary, then turn around and run again as the only candidate that had honor to do the right thing.

HopeHeFails on May 6, 2014 at 11:18 AM

Like Vanceone above, you’ll offer a conspiracy based answer to every sober one offered.
Hillary Clinton rigged the ARB, you say? And that must’ve happened because they didn’t conclude that Hillary was a criminal who should be jailed.
/
Vanceone has also concluded that ‘Obama is in league with Muslim Terrorists’.

It’s just become so silly it’s sad.

verbaluce on May 6, 2014 at 11:14 AM

The straw is getting thick.
You inserted the word “rigged” without responding to any of the charges.

Did Hillary hand pick 4 of the 5 members of the ARB?
Did it take them 8 months to interview 4 State Dept officials who were on leave?
Did they cite any actual documentary evidence to support their conclusions?

Those were the assertions made, not that it was “rigged”. There are allegations on the table that you are attempting to deflect.
While I haven’t checked up on the answers to those points, you simply wave your hand and insert words in de rigueur’s mouth without addressing his points.

airupthere on May 6, 2014 at 11:19 AM

Why don’t you tell us why.

verbaluce on May 6, 2014 at 11:08 AM

Why doesn’t the Administration tell us why? The fact that we don’t know demonstrates the problem.

airupthere on May 6, 2014 at 11:14 AM

Tell you ‘why’ what?
Why Stevens was there…as he asked to be?
Why the CIA had a presence in Libya?

verbaluce on May 6, 2014 at 11:22 AM

Vanceone has also concluded that ‘Obama is in league with Muslim Terrorists’.

It’s just become so silly it’s sad.
verbaluce on May 6, 2014 at 11:14 AM

Again, you latch on to a single comment without addressing the reasoning behind it. Do you refute any of the assertions that followed that comment? You also forget the little qualifier at the end. You are welcome to come up with another explanation as Vance proposed an either/or proposition. Here, I bolded it for you:

Consider: Obama pushed for Mubarak to be overthrown and the Muslim Brotherhood put in charge of Egypt. The Muslim Brotherhood is the organization that spawned Al Qaeda. Obama almost went to war in Syria…. in support of Islamic terrorists. He overthrew Qaddafi and created a state where Islamic terrorists thrive. He sacrificed our ambassador to those terrorists.

He tells Israel to shut up and let Hamas do whatever they want.

Yeah, Obama is in league with Islamic terrorism. Or he at least is determined to look the other way. There’s no other explanation for his actions.

Vanceone on May 6, 2014 at 10:40 AM

airupthere on May 6, 2014 at 11:23 AM

Define “subliminal.” I mean later, when the fog clears.

As for the rest, bringing up Benghazi just dropped Hillary’s approval rating by 9 points.

You’re also wrong about the purpose of the Select Committee. Will be interesting to read your reactions when you figure it out.

de rigueur on May 6, 2014 at 10:40 AM

Hillary Clinton will not lose to a republican if she makes it out alive in the democratic primary.
Some republican women will vote for her in the hope of being part of the historical nonsense.
The Clinton’s love a good fight because they always end up winning most of the time.
She lost to Obama because in the democratic socialist utopia blacks > women.
I hope Warren or a prominent woman democrat runs to defeat her.

weedisgood on May 6, 2014 at 11:26 AM

Tell you ‘why’ what?
Why Stevens was there…as he asked to be?
Why the CIA had a presence in Libya?

verbaluce on May 6, 2014 at 11:22 AM

You are going circular.

airupthere on May 6, 2014 at 11:27 AM

Kerry could destroy the Admin and Hillary, then turn around and run again as the only candidate that had honor to do the right thing.

HopeHeFails on May 6, 2014 at 11:18 AM

The American people are not stupid, they know what’s happening here.
Republicans are scared of a Clinton Presidency.

weedisgood on May 6, 2014 at 11:28 AM

Just as investigating the cover-up of Watergate revealed what was being covered-up, so too it will be here.

And the best part is getting the people from the CIA Annex and asking them if they had to sign an NDA.

Really, the Administration forcing people to do that shows that there is something to cover-up. And that would be signed under duress, and thus null and void.

The President has responsibility for those that serve under him, especially a hand-picked Ambassador sent to a place undergoing a civil war with terrorist attacks on-going. That is HIS representative there, HIS Ambassador sent there by HIM to do this job.

Where were the assets to extract him and his team in case things went south? Where were the naval and air assets necessary to do that in a place that is undergoing such turmoil? Who sends an Ambassador and critical national security personnel to such a place WITHOUT AN EXTRACTION PLAN?

Why was Stevens and, indeed, all the personnel put in such a vulnerable situation with no way out?

Why?

That isn’t a political question. It is a question that involves the Head of State, Head of Government and CinC: that is his responsibility to make sure that those people are protected with all means necessary and NOT having a way to get them out is dereliction of duty of the highest order because it was done ON HIS ORDERS.

That is before you even get to the cover-up. Investigating the cover-up will shed light on these questions because they are integral to the cover-up, itself.

ajacksonian on May 6, 2014 at 11:43 AM

So is Kerry planning on an ‘extended roadtrip’ for the next 2 years?

GarandFan on May 6, 2014 at 11:44 AM

You trolls are looking desperate…

fortcoins on May 6, 2014 at 11:49 AM

You are going circular.

airupthere on May 6, 2014 at 11:27 AM

Sure.
And I suppose you’re just asking questions.

verbaluce on May 6, 2014 at 11:53 AM

Sure.
And I suppose you’re just asking questions.

verbaluce on May 6, 2014 at 11:53 AM

I was just pointing out the assertions that you attempted to deflect away from. Not my problem you choose not to address the issues and instead choose to erect straw men that you slay with the skill of a Knight carrying a flaming sword.

airupthere on May 6, 2014 at 12:06 PM

I look forward to when (D)s are allowed to care about this sort of thing again.
 
rogerb on May 6, 2014 at 8:45 AM

 
Thanks guys.

rogerb on May 6, 2014 at 12:11 PM

“And as I’ve noted here, there have been a number of Republicans who themselves, under the previous administration, said a secretary of state should not be subpoenaed.”

How many of those are responsible for the unnecessary death of Americans, tried to cover it up, then withheld ‘evidence’ thus breaking the law?

Drag his elitist arse before Congress.

easyt65 on May 6, 2014 at 12:15 PM

h a p f a t on May 6, 2014 at 9:25 AM

The Select Committee will investigate the entire Benghazi situation, from failures of policy and security, to failures or readiness and response, to the self-serving, politically expedient lies apparently concocted by Clinton and Obama to protect his reelection and her future election.

It has been the custom to issue an invitation to department heads and arrange a time, but it’s not hard to understand why Issa chose not to do so. Obama and his tools have used every delaying tactic in the book, and weeks can be lost going from invitation to stalling about schedule conflicts to finally forcing the committee to issue subpoenas to more quarreling over dates.

All this comes against a backdrop of refusals to comply with subpoenas, directly or practically by delaying beyond all reason and then turning over documents so redacted they serve only to bolster false claims of compliance. Remember this subpoena was triggered by exposure of the fact that State had failed to turn over relevant documents and redacted others to the point of uselessness, after Kerry had promised prompt cooperation with Congress. Issa is righteously angered and he wants Kerry’s ass before the committee now.

The entire Obama administration, and State in particular, have pushed this nonsense to the limit. Expect further departures from professional courtesy as Obama’s crew have established they aren’t entitled to any. In short, the gloves are off, dropped to the ice, and the fists are going to fly.

By going straight to a subpoena Issa is cutting weeks if not months of delaying tactics off. If anyone thinks Gowdy is going to tolerate the tactics Obama has employed up to this point, they’re seriously mistaken.

novaculus on May 6, 2014 at 12:15 PM

Kerry, Moll Hill, and ozero will wish they had just bitten the bullet after the election and admitted they were just cowards on 9/11/12. It will have been easier than what they are going through starting in July and I expect ozero by proxy will be involved. Except it is to the detriment of the US, we are losing more business than gaining start ups and gaining more illegals than jobs for citizen workers, but pass the popcorn.

rennyangel2 on May 6, 2014 at 12:18 PM

The horsehead hides from what?

Schadenfreude on May 6, 2014 at 12:30 PM

libfreeordie on May 6, 2014 at 9:57 AM

If you’d use your tiny brain, you, of all the people, would love to know why Stevens was there that day.

Schadenfreude on May 6, 2014 at 12:33 PM

Like Vanceone above, you’ll offer a conspiracy based answer to every sober one offered.
Hillary Clinton rigged the ARB, you say? And that must’ve happened because they didn’t conclude that Hillary was a criminal who should be jailed.

It’s just become so silly it’s sad.

verbaluce on May 6, 2014 at 11:14 AM

You’re getting really bad at deflection. Who said anything about a conspiracy? The ARB report wasn’t sober, it was AWOL. There’s not a shred of documentary evidence to back up its conclusions because, as you chose to ignore, the report doesn’t offer any. There’s no indication that they even talked to Hillary, or anyone else at the highest levels of the State Department. Their conclusions relate only to two lesser bureaus within the Dept, as if the buck stops there. Every one knows it doesn’t.

You’ve become so sad, it’s silly.

de rigueur on May 6, 2014 at 12:36 PM

Yes, but does this pass the global test?

He’ll be on his yacht Swift boat in international waters avoiding congressional jurisdiction, and taxes.

FIFY

formwiz on May 6, 2014 at 1:15 PM

Wow, we get libbie, verby and the new stoned kid all screaming there is no there there.

This is going to be a wonderful summer.

D-fusit on May 6, 2014 at 1:24 PM

Cut the State Department budget.

Congress has the power of the purse. Use it!!!

Cut the budget; freeze their pay,

patch on May 6, 2014 at 1:49 PM

Del Dolemonte on May 6, 2014 at 10:07 AM

So just to be clear. The only metric for telling if a presidential Administration has lied to the public is a War Crimes tribunal before the Hague? No other metric can be used?

libfreeordie on May 6, 2014 at 10:21 AM

Well, so far we’ve had Congressional investigations that showed no Lies. Were those “metric” enough for you?

Let us know when you find those Bush Lies, and maybe we’ll stop laughing in your direction!

Del Dolemonte on May 6, 2014 at 4:38 PM

Big surprise! Vile scofflaw swiftboating traitor Hanoi Kerry, the toast & harlot of Vietnamese commies, refuses to obey American law AGAIN (like his boss). I’m just shocked, shocked, shocked! (sarcasm alert). If America were a civilized country of the rule of law, not men, that scumbag would have been executed for treason and murder long ago, like his boss & DOJ’s Holder.

russedav on May 6, 2014 at 4:40 PM

What is shameful is treating Benghazi as a political opportunity.

verbaloon on May 6, 2014 at 10:38 AM

Yeah, you’re right. Your Democrats never treated the original 9/11 attacks as political opportunities, and never treated the War in Iraq and its sideshows like abu Ghraib as political opportunities.

Or was your Democrat Senate Leader simply joking when he said the Iraq War was “lost” back in 2006?

F-

Del Dolemonte on May 6, 2014 at 4:41 PM

The Clinton’s love a good fight because they always end up winning most of the time.

Dave’s Still Not Here on May 6, 2014 at 11:26 AM

Bill Clinton was the first President to be held in contempt of Federal Court by a former law student of his. How is that “winning”?

Bill Clinton was the first elected President to be impeached in the history of the US. How is that “winning”?

And Bill Clinton left his successor the deadliest attacks on US soil in the history of the US. How is that “winning”?

Take your time.

Del Dolemonte on May 6, 2014 at 4:45 PM

The American people are not stupid, they know what’s happening here. That’s why the latest Quinnipiac University poll shows that a majority of Americans say O’bama and his Regime are Lying about Benghazi.

Dave’s Still Not Here on May 6, 2014 at 11:28 AM

Fixed.

Del Dolemonte on May 6, 2014 at 4:47 PM

Trey Gowdy was a District Attorney as well as a Federal Prosecutor, the Obama Administration is in some deep doodoo now.

oscarwilde on May 6, 2014 at 10:02 AM

Would that all our lawyers in Congress were like unto Mr. Gowdy!

AesopFan on May 6, 2014 at 8:21 PM