Panetta, Morell agree: Benghazi select committee is legitimate

posted at 8:41 am on May 13, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

Former CIA Director and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta has a piece of advice for House Democrats, as does former CIA Deputy Director Michael Morell. If they’re thinking about boycotting the select committee on Benghazi, they shouldn’t. Both Panetta and Morell expressed confidence at a press conference that a full investigation would show that the intelligence community didn’t politicize the Benghazi analysis, but agree with Republicans that a full and unified probe into what happened is legitimate for the House (via Jim Geraghty):

Panetta and Morell, noting the attack has been subject to many investigations already, said they welcome the latest one in the House.

“If you look at the polling numbers a not insignificant percentage of the American people still have questions,” Morell said.

Morell, who said he already has testified four times about Benghazi, said he is 100 percent confident the upcoming investigation will show that allegations “the intelligence community politicized its analysis” are false.

Panetta, a former Central Coast congressman and Democratic Party stalwart, said there needs to be an investigation to lay out the full story to the public. “The problem has been sometimes bits and pieces of information keep coming out” that raise more questions, he said.

“Obviously there is a concern whether it’s going to be a political effort to target an issue for a campaign,” Panetta said. “I hope Democrats participate, and it really is a legitimate effort.”

Morell expanded on those comments, as Josh Gerstein reported:

“A lot of people have looked at this, but the polls show that the American people still have questions. I want to make sure that all of those questions are cleared up. There are still some questions about the role of the agency. And there are still questions about my own personal role and I want to clear that up,” Morell said during a panel discussion at the Panetta Institute in Monterey, Calif. “It might be surprising for you to hear me say this, but  I am a supporter of the creation of this committee because I want all the facts to come together in one place and be presented as one—by one entity as one thing, so the American people can see all of this.”

“I am hopeful that at least getting the facts on the table will be helpful.”

Neither of the men are disinterested observers on this question. Morell, as he noted, played a key role in the analysis of the intelligence both during the attack and for the period prior to it. Panetta was CIA Director when the US and NATO started the bombing campaign that decapitated the Libyan dictatorship, and then was Defense Secretary from June 2011 through the time of the attack, retiring in February 2013. The lack of preparedness for the anniversary of 9/11 would fall on his shoulders, which makes Panetta’s support for the new and unified probe a little surprising. After all, he has plenty of fellow Democrats denouncing the whole idea as unnecessary.

That makes a refusal to cooperate even more untenable than before. If two of the probe’s potential targets have endorsed the select committee, why would House Democrats balk at participating? Perhaps they’re more concerned that the facts will tend to exonerate Panetta and Morell and put the blame directly on State and the White House. With these two endorsing a new investigation, though, merely sitting out won’t be enough to protect either State or the White House. Expect Democrats to name their members soon — before Republicans get a chance to hit the ground running.


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

Embrace the suck..
Pelosi

Electrongod on May 13, 2014 at 8:44 AM

It’s hard to lump Panetta in with the hacks he’s worked with. My impression most of the time regardless of political differences is that he’s a stand up guy and one who loves the US.

hawkdriver on May 13, 2014 at 8:45 AM

hawkdriver on May 13, 2014 at 8:45 AM

I was very critical of Panetta’s appointment to CIA, but admitted when he left that he did a good job there based on what we knew at the time.

Ed Morrissey on May 13, 2014 at 8:46 AM

I always thought Panetta was an honest type. He ought to be a Republican.

crankyoldlady on May 13, 2014 at 8:48 AM

Agreed Ed.

hawkdriver on May 13, 2014 at 8:50 AM

Don’t tell chuck todd…. via mediate – paraphrase all the answers have been given the gop just doesn’t like them

Good lapdog Chuckie

cmsinaz on May 13, 2014 at 8:51 AM

Perhaps they’re more concerned that the facts will tend to exonerate Panetta and Morell and put the blame directly on State and the White House.

In the words of Apollo Creed: Ding. Ding.

WisRich on May 13, 2014 at 8:53 AM

What does Leon know about something that happened like…well a long time ago.

I wonder if Panetta is the type of guy who knew something was very very wrong in Benghazi but has that type of personality which didn’t translate well into being forceful with Dog Eater or Killary.

Bishop on May 13, 2014 at 8:55 AM

a full investigation would show that the intelligence community didn’t politicize the Benghazi analysis

Of course not. The White House did that.

forest on May 13, 2014 at 8:56 AM

What’s it mean when certain players welcome an investigation while others oppose it? Who’s looking more and more guilty here?

Looks to me like these guys want to clear their names. Who’ll be left holding the bag?

Lolo on May 13, 2014 at 8:57 AM

You don’t want to pi$$ off the spooks, they know where all of the dirt is hidden on everyone in DC. And Obama laid the blame square on them for all of the lies about Benghazi.

I would not be surprised that someone in one of the intelligence agencies had something to do with that email getting “found” and made sure it went public.

Johnnyreb on May 13, 2014 at 9:01 AM

CIA payback for being thrown under the bus by Obama and Hillary.

matthew8787 on May 13, 2014 at 9:04 AM

So… can we get a do-over on the 2012 election? No?

Fallon on May 13, 2014 at 9:07 AM

Who does Nancy chose?

ladyingray on May 13, 2014 at 9:09 AM

https://twitter.com/search?q=%23benghazi

#Benghazi: Trey Gowdy Silences the Press
May 13th, 2014 – 1:23 am
************************

Video:

http://pjmedia.com/eddriscoll/2014/05/13/benghazi-trey-gowdy-silences-the-press/

canopfor on May 13, 2014 at 9:12 AM

Perhaps they’re more concerned that the facts will tend to exonerate Panetta and Morell and put the blame directly on State and the White House.

Hillary was more concerned with preserving her presidential ambitions. Those are now shot to h.e. double hockey stick.

I always thought Panetta was an honest type. He ought to be a Republican.

crankyoldlady on May 13, 2014 at 8:48 AM

He strikes me as an honest Democrat. As much of a contradiction as that is. In the mold of Joe Lieberman. An endangered species.

rbj on May 13, 2014 at 9:15 AM

Agreed. Panetta and Morell, know what they wrote; they also know the spin that the Choom Prince, Whitewater Queen, and their fawning courtiers put on it.

The reason the Obama Party is pissing itself on this is because the facts nail their current White House seat warmer, their planned next one (Hillary), and their emergency idiot (Biden). It also burns up their race and vagina cards, so out go Lieawatha, Makes It Up Booker, and the mainland Castro brothers. And thanks to Obamacare, the Obama Party governors are almost all sitting in the cow dung wreckage of their ruined exchanges.

In short, bye bye Democrat White House, and hello Federal bureaucracy purges and cuts.

northdallasthirty on May 13, 2014 at 9:17 AM

Video:

http://pjmedia.com/eddriscoll/2014/05/13/benghazi-trey-gowdy-silences-the-press/

canopfor on May 13, 2014 at 9:12 AM

Thanx canopfor. This is one for the history books and our own video files!

gracie on May 13, 2014 at 9:20 AM

This move has been in the offing for some time. This administration politicizes EVERYTHING, and to the extent that it has, either by design or unintended consequences, politicized the Military and the Intelligence Services, as well (We all know about the ‘Justice Dept). The obligatory push back has begun. There seems to be some left who don’t want to go down with the ship. Interesting times ahead. Now, if only Lerner would roll over…

vnvet on May 13, 2014 at 9:24 AM

So you’ve got CIA and SecDef endorsing the committee. Who’s left out in the cold? Was some other alphabet-agency, or NGO, or bunch of staffers operating the gun-running business?

bofh on May 13, 2014 at 9:37 AM

canopfor on May 13, 2014 at 9:12 AM

Thanx canopfor. This is one for the history books and our own video files!

gracie on May 13, 2014 at 9:20 AM

gracie:Anytime,..Gowdy sure went to town on that!:)

canopfor on May 13, 2014 at 9:40 AM

Video:

http://pjmedia.com/eddriscoll/2014/05/13/benghazi-trey-gowdy-silences-the-press/

canopfor on May 13, 2014 at 9:12 AM

LOVED that! Thank you.

Lolo on May 13, 2014 at 9:42 AM

NYT editorial staff hardest hit…

mjbrooks3 on May 13, 2014 at 9:58 AM

Come to think of it doesn’t Paneta have connections with the CIA. I’ve always had an inkling that the CIA doesn’t approve of the White House gang and will use an opportunity to shaft them. Of course, we have no idea what the CIA does.

crankyoldlady on May 13, 2014 at 10:00 AM

So you’ve got CIA and SecDef endorsing the committee. Who’s left out in the cold? Was some other alphabet-agency, or NGO, or bunch of staffers operating the gun-running business?

bofh on May 13, 2014 at 9:37 AM

Two rats looking to clear their name for posterity’s sake, also I believe Panetta has never been a big fan of the boy-king and the feeling is probably mutual.

Thge fact they both have baically endoresed this investigation and carfeully parsed how THEY will be exonerated but left out this administration appears as a “tell” to me.

I would guess there is something bad out there to be found and they know it and probably belive it will get discovered without their help, making this a near perfect avenue to grind an axe or two.

Skwor on May 13, 2014 at 10:01 AM

http://pjmedia.com/eddriscoll/2014/05/13/benghazi-trey-gowdy-silences-the-press/

canopfor on May 13, 2014 at 9:12 AM

.
That was hot. Scorching hot…

“I’m just surprised how many people bought it.”

ExpressoBold on May 13, 2014 at 10:02 AM

Pannetta and Morrell are not being honest, they are engaging in smart politics. Both of them are guilty as hell of obstruction of justice, moral culpability for the lack of response to the islamist attacks, and fraud on the electorate in the 2012 presidential election. No one, and I mean no one, with all the data on this denies that this is the case. This was Obama and Hillary in full blown cover up mode.

But what Pannetta and Morrell (both former CIA) know is that they must position themselves on the side of the investigators so that they can denounce the results of the investigation.

georgealbert on May 13, 2014 at 10:09 AM

Video:

http://pjmedia.com/eddriscoll/2014/05/13/benghazi-trey-gowdy-silences-the-press/

canopfor on May 13, 2014 at 9:12 AM

That’s how it’s done.

Anybody who hasn’t yet should watch the clip.

forest on May 13, 2014 at 10:09 AM

Pannetta and Morrell are not being honest, they are engaging in smart politics. Both of them are guilty as hell of obstruction of justice, moral culpability for the lack of response to the islamist attacks, and fraud on the electorate in the 2012 presidential election. No one, and I mean no one, with all the data on this denies that this is the case. This was Obama and Hillary in full blown cover up mode.

But what Pannetta and Morrell (both former CIA) know is that they must position themselves on the side of the investigators so that they can denounce the results of the investigation.

georgealbert on May 13, 2014 at 10:09 AM

I really don’t see the dots you are connecting here. They support and endorse the investigation so they can denounce it? Sorry that just doesn’t add up to me. Better to be seen calling it a political action in the beginning so at the end you can denounce it as just that. The only people who would benefit from legitimizing the investigation are those on the committee, non-participants endorsing it only to denounce it later would like fools.

Skwor on May 13, 2014 at 10:19 AM

It’s hard to lump Panetta in with the hacks he’s worked with. My impression most of the time regardless of political differences is that he’s a stand up guy and one who loves the US.

hawkdriver on May 13, 2014 at 8:45 AM

…yep!…when he says there “is nothing there” regarding the investigating though…I am wishing they went behind Panetta’s back…because Panetta usually knows what is going on.

KOOLAID2 on May 13, 2014 at 10:20 AM

It’s hard to lump Panetta in with the hacks he’s worked with. My impression most of the time regardless of political differences is that he’s a stand up guy and one who loves the US.

hawkdriver on May 13, 2014 at 8:45 AM

Sorry, his disgraceful explanation as to why we didn’t at least make a rescue effort was all part of the coverup. We didn’t send aid because we have to have a complete intelligence picture first? Please.

butch on May 13, 2014 at 10:20 AM

Sorry, his disgraceful explanation as to why we didn’t at least make a rescue effort was all part of the coverup. We didn’t send aid because we have to have a complete intelligence picture first? Please.

butch on May 13, 2014 at 10:20 AM

Panetta is only claiming the intelligence of the report was not politicized. Nothing about what was done with that intelligence, which by the way falls squarely on the executive branch to make the decision. They are parsing their words very carefully in this public statement.

Skwor on May 13, 2014 at 10:29 AM

Methinks the both of them have read the tea leaves and know that it’s better to cooperate now than be exposed later. They both have some culpability in the episode but not as much as the King and Princess. So get out in front of it, as they say.

MaxMBJ on May 13, 2014 at 10:31 AM

Somehow, I think a whole bunch of things will be demystified as these hearings progress. The firing of Petraus. The Russian / Snowden connection. The failure of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. The resignation ofHillary as Sec. Of State. The Candy Crowley setup.

And, of course, the Susan Rice video indictment.

Dems are scared and rightfully.

MaxMBJ on May 13, 2014 at 10:36 AM

Skwor on May 13, 2014 at 10:29 AM

O.K., I can see that, but he’s going to have to throw someone over the side of the bridge, eventually. Oh boy, oh boy, oh boy!

butch on May 13, 2014 at 10:37 AM

Video:

http://pjmedia.com/eddriscoll/2014/05/13/benghazi-trey-gowdy-silences-the-press/

canopfor on May 13, 2014 at 9:12 AM

I saw this when it happened and wondered why the peeps on our side didn’t jump on it and continue that dialogue. (I know, I’m a dreamer…but a legal one.) Next thing I thought was I want Gowdy for attorney general.

As for Panetta and Morrell, their hands could have been tied to keep them from speaking up sooner, but I pray they do the right thing and come forth with the truth, and nothing but the truth. So help them God, and this nation.

31giddyup on May 13, 2014 at 10:40 AM

Problem is that Pelose will appoint the most partisan hacks she owns….. Imagine Sheila Jackson Lee for starters!!

ultracon on May 13, 2014 at 10:51 AM

Methinks the both of them have read the tea leaves and know that it’s better to cooperate now than be exposed later. They both have some culpability in the episode but not as much as the King and Princess. So get out in front of it, as they say.

MaxMBJ on May 13, 2014 at 10:31 AM

Actually I must disagree, both men know stuff about what happened in Benghazi. stuff that they desperately do not want to make public. They are not asking the Democrat to cooperate, but to be a part of the hearings so that they can filibuster and obstruct those hearings so that the information they have never see’s the light of day.

Information like, what was Ambassador Stevens doing at a CIA operational facility on the 11th anniversary of 9/11 in an Islamic Nation that the United States in clear violation of the War Powers Act had just overthrown the Government of?

oscarwilde on May 13, 2014 at 10:52 AM

What does Petraeus say…?

d1carter on May 13, 2014 at 10:55 AM

I always thought Panetta was an honest type. He ought to be a Republican.

crankyoldlady on May 13, 2014 at 8:48 AM

I think he just wants to make sure that the intelligence community doesn’t get tarred by this. Unlike him, I think an investigation will show that it’s been heavily politicized by the administration. Putting Dems on the committee will just ensure that all the truth never comes out. No Dems means that all the dirt would be dug up in the testimony and depositions, but then the MSM will ignore it. It’ll go in the public record, and that’s it.

Ward Cleaver on May 13, 2014 at 11:10 AM

I think these two are asking for help…the select committee has scare the crap out of the players.

d1carter on May 13, 2014 at 11:10 AM

What does Petraeus say…?

d1carter on May 13, 2014 at 10:55 AM

“Now turn that way, baby.”

Ward Cleaver on May 13, 2014 at 11:10 AM

Actually I must disagree, both men know stuff about what happened in Benghazi. stuff that they desperately do not want to make public. They are not asking the Democrat to cooperate, but to be a part of the hearings so that they can filibuster and obstruct those hearings so that the information they have never see’s the light of day.

Information like, what was Ambassador Stevens doing at a CIA operational facility on the 11th anniversary of 9/11 in an Islamic Nation that the United States in clear violation of the War Powers Act had just overthrown the Government of?

oscarwilde on May 13, 2014 at 10:52 AM

I was arguing in another thread that I had no doubt that Pelosi would appointment member to the committee.

Why?

Because Obama and Clinton were telling them to, that’s why.

They want them delaying, denouncing, and playing interference all the way through 2016.

Morell and Panetta probably have the same motivation.

WisRich on May 13, 2014 at 11:21 AM

Because Obama and Clinton were telling them to, that’s why.

They want them delaying, denouncing, and playing interference all the way through 2016.

Morell and Panetta probably have the same motivation.

WisRich on May 13, 2014 at 11:21 AM

Oh, and I think the only reason for the delay from Pelosi so far is that they actually don’t trust Obama and Clinton, especially Clinton. She knows the level of lies the Clintons are capable of and doesn’t want to get burned. There’s no “vast right conspiracy”.

WisRich on May 13, 2014 at 11:25 AM

Blue on blue attacks, Dems are running scared. Keep up the pressure GOP. Doesn’t matter who is on the committee. Obama is the primary target behind the scandal and impeachment is the goal. Hillary is just a bonus, focus on Obama.

sauldalinsky on May 13, 2014 at 11:26 AM

This reminds me of the Lance Armstrong investigation. For years he proclaimed he wasn’t guilty …. then the wall finally broke.

Hopefully the same thing is happening here.

LouisianaLightning on May 13, 2014 at 11:28 AM

What does Leon know about something that happened like…well a long time ago.

I wonder if Panetta is the type of guy who knew something was very very wrong in Benghazi but has that type of personality which didn’t translate well into being forceful with Dog Eater or Killary.

Bishop on May 13, 2014 at 8:55 AM

If the story is true, Panetta did an end run around the Choom Gang to hit bin Laden.

If so, you can bet the Messiah wasn’t going to let him do it a second time.

formwiz on May 13, 2014 at 11:51 AM

This reminds me of the Lance Armstrong investigation. For years he proclaimed he wasn’t guilty …. then the wall finally broke.

Hopefully the same thing is happening here.

LouisianaLightning on May 13, 2014 at 11:28 AM

It’d be nice, but I doubt that it’d matter.

Even if you had an email of Obama saying “Cover up this AQ angle until after the election and find me a scapegoat. YouTube? Good – use it” (which I’m sure doesn’t exist), it would be played as political gamesmanship nothingburger by the media. Many of their savvier talking heads have already started laying the foundation for this argument because they know there was a political coverup.

The left is fine with the most rampant egregious types of corruption, as long as it’s their guys doing it.

crrr6 on May 13, 2014 at 11:54 AM

This is a serious stab in the face (not even the back) of the Administration by those two. They want to be exonerated, they know they will be — and they know exactly who is to blame. I’m shocked they’re in favor of this, and that their betters didn’t warn/threaten them against it… unless the evidence has already been shredded, another completely plausible possibility.

nullrouted on May 13, 2014 at 11:57 AM

Video:
http://pjmedia.com/eddriscoll/2014/05/13/benghazi-trey-gowdy-silences-the-press/

canopfor on May 13, 2014 at 9:12 AM

Ok, just watched. So, how do I make this erection go away? ;-)

crrr6 on May 13, 2014 at 11:59 AM

Former CIA Director and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta has a piece of advice for House Democrats, as does former CIA Deputy Director Michael Morell. If they’re thinking about boycotting the select committee on Benghazi, they shouldn’t. Both Panetta and Morell expressed confidence at a press conference that a full investigation would show that the intelligence community didn’t politicize the Benghazi analysis, but agree with Republicans that a full and unified probe into what happened is legitimate for the House (via Jim Geraghty):

Interesting that these two represent the DOD and the CIA. Even more interesting that you’re not getting any such comments from the State Department.

But totally unsurprising. The DOD probably has nothing to fear from an exhaustive probe, since I’m quite sure they were following the orders they were given, including ‘STAND DOWN.’

And the CIA was also following orders.

It’s the State Department and the White House that want this investigation to be treated as illegitimate. Almost like they have something to fear……

There Goes the Neighborhood on May 13, 2014 at 12:05 PM

Perhaps they’re more concerned that the facts will tend to exonerate Panetta and Morell and put the blame directly on State and the White House.

Panetta probably heard what the CIA agents trying to defend the Benghazi consulate were telling him, and was trying to contact someone at State or in the military to get help for them. If he testifies that he didn’t know about the video story until later, and/or that he tried to contact Hillary Clinton or someone else at the State Department, it won’t look good for Hillary Clinton.

Exit question: Since Panetta used to work for the (Bill) Clinton Administration, will he try to cover for Hillary before the Gowdy committee in the hopes of getting a job in a Hillary Administration?

Steve Z on May 13, 2014 at 12:13 PM

Dan Millbank, the utter pig, wrote an article against Gowdy, focusing on his hair.

Imagine if we’d focus on Hillary’s hair and cankles.

Schadenfreude on May 13, 2014 at 12:23 PM

Panetta probably heard what the CIA agents trying to defend the Benghazi consulate were telling him, and was trying to contact someone at State or in the military to get help for them.
Steve Z on May 13, 2014 at 12:13 PM

No, that isn’t what he said directly after it happened. He said they didn’t send help because we never send our military into situations where we don’t have adequate intelligence. A decision was made to not send help and he tried to justify it. It’s on video someplace. I saw it several times. He’s part of the denial of aid, or at least the excuse for why we abandoned them.

butch on May 13, 2014 at 12:25 PM

Maybe a little off-topic — but not much: Awesome political cartoon from Ramirez today.

http://townhall.com/political-cartoons/2014/05/13/118776

There Goes the Neighborhood on May 13, 2014 at 12:55 PM

Morell,fred … said he is 100 percent confident the upcoming investigation will show that allegations “the intelligence community White House politicized its analysis” are false true.

fred5678 on May 13, 2014 at 1:02 PM

How is this not an indictment on Hillary? These guys stand to lose something -even it it’s nothing more than reputation. They know what happened and why so for CIA and DoD to come out in favor of a top-to-bottom investigation by one committee with access to all the info, it has to be because they know they’re clean. Since not everyone is clean in this fiasco, that leaves Hillary and the White House as the only remaining dirtbags.

BKeyser on May 13, 2014 at 1:20 PM

CIA payback for being thrown under the bus by Obama and Hillary.

matthew8787 on May 13, 2014 at 9:04 AM

From the beginning of this administration the military and CIA have been on one side of the fence, and State and the administration have been on the other. I paid particular attention to how the two sides were reacting during the Benghazi crisis, and it was obvious to me that the administration was trying to throw CIA under the bus. They weren’t backing down in the face of the attack, but they behaved cautiously.

Somebody had to be leaking to the Republicans to keep this thing warm. Now the perfect opportunity has arisen, and CIA and Defense have struck back.

The Dem’s position on Benghazi has always been about protecting Hillary. This is really bad for them, a real sucker punch delivered with a big beaming FU smile. The timing is perfect. And any dunce can tell that their hysterical reaction and lack of sane, rational, and coordinating messaging and response means that they have a lot to hide, and to answer for. This is not going to be pretty.

Joseph K on May 13, 2014 at 4:27 PM

“If you look at the polling numbers a not insignificant percentage of the American people still have questions,” Morell said.

Really?

I wonder what the “I Don’t Have Enough Information” numbers were.

So far the majority of my liberal friends actually think Benghazi and the associated investigations and stories is about a war. The murder of an ambassador is somewhat of a shock to them when I inform them about what it’s really about.

ButterflyDragon on May 13, 2014 at 4:55 PM

I cant view the video, get “this page archived or suspended”.

Tried Eddriscoll dot com, too, same message

Too many peeps watching??

Lord Whorfin on May 13, 2014 at 6:27 PM

A Benghazi attack is what happens when we have two rank amateurs in high public-office. There are only two people really responsible for lack of military security forces in Benghazi. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. They are also responsible for the “spontaneous-video fairy-tale” they cooked up to try to cover the lies they had been telling the American-public, that the Al Qaeda were on the run ! Having two pathological-liars, one of them in the White-House and the other trying to become President is VERY disappointing to American-citizens !

Bugdust172 on May 13, 2014 at 10:27 PM

I cant view the video, get “this page archived or suspended”.

Tried Eddriscoll dot com, too, same message

Too many peeps watching??

Lord Whorfin on May 13, 2014 at 6:27 PM

Lord Worfin: Try this:——:0
==============================

Trey Gowdy Demands Answers On Benghazi

Published on Oct 30, 2013

Trey Gowdy Demands Answers On Benghazi
**************************************

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1jeJmeeMjs

canopfor on May 14, 2014 at 1:18 AM