Posted on 09/20/2013 6:05:20 AM PDT by don-o
The State Department said Thursday that Republican subpoenas to interview witnesses to the Benghazi terror attack could “jeopardize” the FBI's investigation.
House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) announced Thursday that he has subpoenaed John Martinec, the top security adviser to slain U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens, who was killed in the attack. Issa has also subpoenaed Alec Henderson, the regional security officer in Benghazi.
“We understand that the Diplomatic Security law enforcement agents who performed heroically on September 11 are likely witnesses at any criminal proceedings relating to the Benghazi attacks, and that additional interviews of them outside of the criminal justice process could jeopardize those efforts to bring the terrorists to justice,” a State Department official told The Hill. “That said, the Department is not preventing any employees who wish to tell their story from doing so.”
Issa accused the department of playing “hide and seek” with witnesses, and downplayed criticism that having them testify could harm law enforcement's efforts to bring to justice the Benghazi attackers.
The State Department “is now hiding behind a thinly-veiled statement that there is a criminal investigation into the terror attack,” Issa said.
Issa has accused the Obama administration of deliberately lying by linking the attack to a protest over an anti-Islam video ahead of last year's elections. Republicans believe witnesses to the attack will confirm there was never a protest and otherwise criticize security failings at the U.S. mission in Benghazi.
Law enforcement officials worry that on-the-record testimony could be used by defense attorneys for any alleged attackers to point out discrepancies among the witnesses. Obama administration officials have said that one wounded American remains in the hospital and four others are back on the job.
ping
What investigation?
What securing of the criminal site?
What attempt to arrest/interrogate/execute the murderers?
What attempt to protect the witnesses?
What attempt to inform Congressional oversight?
NONE. NONE. NONE.
Didn’t I just read a few days ago that the state department has issued a ‘do not investigate’ order in Benghazi .. or something like that ?
Smoke and mirrors...
Jeopardize the FBI probe in what way?
Threaten its ability to run forever without any determination?
Blow it out your reggie hole obama!
Was not Nixon accused of using a CIA ruse to coverup a watergate era campaign donation? Seems to me citing an investigation that does not exist as a reason to compel repeal of a subpeona for testimony to Congress is an Obstruction of Justice. It further seems to me that whomever launched the ballon needs be taken out of the white hut in cuffs. If it is his excellency, this is a high crime.
Get on with the probe, the FBI hasn’t been helpful in the last year.
Darrell ISSA.....SUBPOENA HILLARY and COMPANY!!
Oh, puleez! The only thing this administration might be worried about is finding out that O passed out candies and danced when he found out that his buddies had successfully completed their mission in Benghazi.
Benghazi was an act of terrorism against the United States in a lawless foreign country in the middle of a civil war.
The FBI has investigated and found that the responible people are al- Qaeda terrorists and they have been identified personally
This administration has done nothing to arrest the terrorists that the FBI have determined to have commited the crimes.
This is not a law enforcement issue to begin with and to attempt to enforce US criminal law in Libya is not the jobof the FBI nor is it possible.
The FBI investigation is just a smoke screen to distract clueless low information voters and to give the Presidents mob lawyers something to shuck and jive with
Oh, yeah. The State Department. That virtual font of credibility.
I wouldn’t believe anything this government says.
Duck and cover.
Yes.
Oh, do they mean the FBI investigation that got run out of Libya?
The FBI is part of the executive branch, congress is co-equal and is free to launch their own investigation. If the executive branch can’t deal with it, that’s just tough.
On the record testimony? You mean as in depositions? Which any defense lawyer is going to conduct on their own?
And why would such "discrepancies" be seen as inevitable?
More generally, how did we let this "can't comment because of an ongoing investigation" canard get such traction?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.