Republicans want new Clinton testimony on Benghazi, float possibility of subpoena

• 

  Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.AP

WASHINGTON –  Calls are growing for former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to return to Capitol Hill -- under subpoena, if necessary -- to answer new questions that have surfaced about her role in the response to the Benghazi terror attack. 

“I believe she was disconnected and dispassionate about what was happening,” House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa told Fox News on Monday.

During the interview, Issa kept the option of forcing Clinton to testify on the table. 

Conservatives have challenged Clinton’s account of what happened and how it was presented to the public in light of recent details. 

Specifically, lawmakers like Issa and New Hampshire Republican Sen. Kelly Ayotte say they want Clinton on the record about her role in watering down a CIA memo about how the attacks started -- and whether she knew about the apparent lack of security at the foreign outpost.

“Maybe, just maybe, she knew,” Issa said. 

It's unclear whether lawmakers would go so far as to subpoena the former secretary but they've suggested they'll do what it takes to bring her back to Capitol Hill, after she first testified in January. 

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R- S.C., suggested he was open to using subpoena power last week. "I hope she would come back without that, but yes," he said during an interview with USA Today. "I think she needs to come back and answer questions." 

Former Vice President Dick Cheney also told Republicans during a meeting last week that they may need to subpoena Clinton to get more answers. "I think Hillary (Clinton) should be subpoenaed if necessary," Cheney said.

The Libya controversy could undermine Clinton’s case as a future presidential candidate – something her supporters say is the real reason behind the push to get her back in the Benghazi spotlight. President Obama also pushed back against the revived controversy on Monday, calling it a political "sideshow." 

But Republicans rejected the charge as they sought new testimony from others. Issa sent letters Monday to the Benghazi Accountability Review Board (ARB) co-chairmen former Ambassador Thomas Pickering and former Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen requesting that they submit to transcribed interviews in anticipation of a public hearing on the board’s investigation. 

The letters come after three State Department officials described the report as “incomplete” and said that it let senior officials, like Clinton and her top staffers, “off the hook.”

Pickering defended his decision Sunday not to question Clinton because he said it had been concluded that the negligence that led to the attacks and the misinformation that followed was not her fault. Instead, he said the missteps were made by those working beneath her.

“We knew where the responsibility rested," Pickering told CBS’ “Face the Nation.”  “They've tried to point a finger at people more senior than where we found the decisions were made." 

Pickering said he and Mullen had to work within the legal scope of the investigation and that they “knew and understood” Clinton’s role based upon “talking to other people at meetings.” 

But lawmakers still have questions about Clinton's role in everything from considering security requests to emphasizing the role of an anti-Islam film in the days after the attack. 

Clinton reportedly told Charles Woods, the father of Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods who was killed in the attack, that the department would make sure to arrest and prosecute the maker of an anti-Islam film that had been linked to protests. Woods claimed on Glenn Beck’s online show that Clinton apologized for the attacks but said he “could tell that she was not telling me the truth.” 

That was around the time U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice claimed the attack was a “spontaneous” reaction to demonstrations over the video. The administration even paid for an ad to run in Pakistan condemning the video. 

According to news reports, the CIA’s version of the attacks changed 12 different times before being made public.

A resolution sponsored by Virginia Rep. Frank Wolf that calls on the House to form a special committee to investigate the terror attacks is gaining traction. More than 200 lawmakers have signed on to the cause.

Calls to the State Department for additional comment were not immediately returned.

Calls to Clinton’s spokesman were also not immediately returned.

View the original article here

Republicans look to show 'cover-up' as whistle-blowers give Benghazi testimony

• 

• • 

    Will Benghazi whistle-blowers unearth a cover-up?

  • 

    Could the military have helped during the Benghazi attacks?

  • 

    Bias Bash: Difference in Benghazi media coverage

Republican lawmakers hounding the Obama administration for months over unanswered questions on the Benghazi attack will have their moment, on Wednesday, to demonstrate whether the internal response amounted to a cover-up -- as whistle-blowers give long-awaited testimony expected to challenge the White House's version of events. 

The administration has parried Republican allegations lately by arguing that the attack is old news, that the State Department already has investigated it and that Republicans are engaged in a political witch hunt. 

But a series of carefully timed leaks on the whistle-blowers' testimony indicates House Republicans could have the goods to at least merit a second look at the administration narrative. 

"The question is, where's the accountability for lying to the American people?" Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, told Fox News. "The American people were lied to." 

Three whistle-blowers are set to testify shortly before noon to the oversight committee Issa chairs. 

Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, a member of that committee, said if it weren't for lawmakers' persistence, "we would be left with a whole host of lies coming out of this administration, because they were not truthful about this." 

The "truth" surrounding the Benghazi attack has been elusive. The Obama administration has adamantly denied several of the latest charges, including a claim that then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and a key aide tried to cut the department's own counterterrorism bureau out of the chain of reporting and decision-making on Sept. 11. The administration also denied that the whistle-blowers in question were intimidated -- while behind the scenes questioning the credibility of the witnesses. 

The witnesses are: Gregory N. Hicks, the deputy chief of mission at the U.S. Embassy in Libya at the time of the Benghazi terrorist attacks; Mark I. Thompson, a former U.S. Marine and presently the deputy coordinator for operations in the State Department's Counterterrorism Bureau, and Eric Nordstrom, a diplomatic security officer who was formerly the regional security officer in Libya. 

The witnesses are expected to cover a breadth of material in their testimony Wednesday. Lawmakers have questioned to what extent security requests were ignored before the attack, whether the military could have done more to respond the night of the attack and whether talking points were intentionally changed for political reasons after the attack to downplay terrorism. The witnesses could address all three areas on Wednesday. 

Issa claimed one "cover-up" is "undeniable" -- that the State Department botched security in Benghazi in the run-up to the attack. But, he said, "it still doesn't explain the president misleading the American people over a period of weeks." 

The Weekly Standard reported last week that the initial CIA talking points on the attack said "Islamic extremists with ties to al Qaeda participated in the attack." The reference to Al Qaeda was later taken out, and the initial reference to "attacks" was reportedly changed to "demonstrations." 

According to The Weekly Standard, State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland raised "serious concerns" at the time about the draft, concerned it could fuel criticism of the department. 

The language continued to be watered down. 

Issa told Fox News, in reference to the revisions, that "it's very clear ... that this was a political change." 

Hicks, according to a transcript, also told congressional investigators that he thought it "was a terrorist attack from the get go." 

The whistle-blowers will be able to provide a new perspective on what was happening on the ground that night.   

Hicks, according to transcripts, told investigators that the U.S. military could have prevented one wave of the deadly attack on American personnel in Benghazi if fighter jets had been promptly deployed. Further, he claimed that a second rescue team that was supposed to go from Tripoli to Benghazi early the next morning was told not to go. 

He said Special Forces personnel were planning to board a C-130 flight at around 6 a.m. local time on Sept. 12 but got a phone call when they were on their way to the flight telling them "you can't go now, you don't have authority to go now. And so they missed the flight." 

He added: "They were told not to board the flight, so they missed it," apparently because they did not have the "right authority." 

Thompson has also claimed that Clinton and a key aide effectively tried to cut the department's own counterterrorism bureau out of the loop that night.   

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney denied the claim on Monday. 

Daniel Benjamin, who ran the department's Counterterrorism Bureau at the time, also put out a statement Monday morning strongly denying the charges. 

"I ran the bureau then, and I can say now with certainty, as the former Coordinator for Counterterrorism, that this charge is simply untrue," he said. "Though I was out of the country on official travel at the time of the attack, I was in frequent contact with the Department. At no time did I feel that the Bureau was in any way being left out of deliberations that it should have been part of."

View the original article here

Republicans look to show 'cover-up' as whistle-blowers give Benghazi testimony

• 

• • 

    Will Benghazi whistle-blowers unearth a cover-up?

  • 

    Could the military have helped during the Benghazi attacks?

  • 

    Bias Bash: Difference in Benghazi media coverage

Republican lawmakers hounding the Obama administration for months over unanswered questions on the Benghazi attack will have their moment, on Wednesday, to demonstrate whether the internal response amounted to a cover-up -- as whistle-blowers give long-awaited testimony expected to challenge the White House's version of events. 

The administration has parried Republican allegations lately by arguing that the attack is old news, that the State Department already has investigated it and that Republicans are engaged in a political witch hunt. 

But a series of carefully timed leaks on the whistle-blowers' testimony indicates House Republicans could have the goods to at least merit a second look at the administration narrative. 

"The question is, where's the accountability for lying to the American people?" Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, told Fox News. "The American people were lied to." 

Three whistle-blowers are set to testify shortly before noon to the oversight committee Issa chairs. 

Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, a member of that committee, said if it weren't for lawmakers' persistence, "we would be left with a whole host of lies coming out of this administration, because they were not truthful about this." 

The "truth" surrounding the Benghazi attack has been elusive. The Obama administration has adamantly denied several of the latest charges, including a claim that then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and a key aide tried to cut the department's own counterterrorism bureau out of the chain of reporting and decision-making on Sept. 11. The administration also denied that the whistle-blowers in question were intimidated -- while behind the scenes questioning the credibility of the witnesses. 

The witnesses are: Gregory N. Hicks, the deputy chief of mission at the U.S. Embassy in Libya at the time of the Benghazi terrorist attacks; Mark I. Thompson, a former U.S. Marine and presently the deputy coordinator for operations in the State Department's Counterterrorism Bureau, and Eric Nordstrom, a diplomatic security officer who was formerly the regional security officer in Libya. 

The witnesses are expected to cover a breadth of material in their testimony Wednesday. Lawmakers have questioned to what extent security requests were ignored before the attack, whether the military could have done more to respond the night of the attack and whether talking points were intentionally changed for political reasons after the attack to downplay terrorism. The witnesses could address all three areas on Wednesday. 

Issa claimed one "cover-up" is "undeniable" -- that the State Department botched security in Benghazi in the run-up to the attack. But, he said, "it still doesn't explain the president misleading the American people over a period of weeks." 

The Weekly Standard reported last week that the initial CIA talking points on the attack said "Islamic extremists with ties to al Qaeda participated in the attack." The reference to Al Qaeda was later taken out, and the initial reference to "attacks" was reportedly changed to "demonstrations." 

According to The Weekly Standard, State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland raised "serious concerns" at the time about the draft, concerned it could fuel criticism of the department. 

The language continued to be watered down. 

Issa told Fox News, in reference to the revisions, that "it's very clear ... that this was a political change." 

Hicks, according to a transcript, also told congressional investigators that he thought it "was a terrorist attack from the get go." 

The whistle-blowers will be able to provide a new perspective on what was happening on the ground that night.   

Hicks, according to transcripts, told investigators that the U.S. military could have prevented one wave of the deadly attack on American personnel in Benghazi if fighter jets had been promptly deployed. Further, he claimed that a second rescue team that was supposed to go from Tripoli to Benghazi early the next morning was told not to go. 

He said Special Forces personnel were planning to board a C-130 flight at around 6 a.m. local time on Sept. 12 but got a phone call when they were on their way to the flight telling them "you can't go now, you don't have authority to go now. And so they missed the flight." 

He added: "They were told not to board the flight, so they missed it," apparently because they did not have the "right authority." 

Thompson has also claimed that Clinton and a key aide effectively tried to cut the department's own counterterrorism bureau out of the loop that night.   

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney denied the claim on Monday. 

Daniel Benjamin, who ran the department's Counterterrorism Bureau at the time, also put out a statement Monday morning strongly denying the charges. 

"I ran the bureau then, and I can say now with certainty, as the former Coordinator for Counterterrorism, that this charge is simply untrue," he said. "Though I was out of the country on official travel at the time of the attack, I was in frequent contact with the Department. At no time did I feel that the Bureau was in any way being left out of deliberations that it should have been part of."

View the original article here