Posted on 10/01/2015 9:11:18 AM PDT by afraidfortherepublic
The House Benghazi Committee's investigation will soon take center stage in American politics. Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton will appear at a hearing held by the committee next month — little more than one year before the presidential election.
Since its formation in 2014, the committee has served as something of a thorn in Clinton's side. The committee first uncovered that Clinton had used personal email and at least one private server as secretary of state. Her public responses to questions about her unusual email arrangement have dogged her presidential campaign, as new revelations have forced her to alter earlier statements made about her exchange of classified information and the security of her communications.
Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., chairman of the committee investigating the 2012 terrorist attack in Libya, talked to the Washington Examiner about his investigation, his plans for Clinton's hearing, and the changes that he hopes result from his committee's work.
The following is an edited transcript of Gowdy's in-depth conversation with the Examiner:
Examiner: I wanted to ask you specifically about the potential existence of multiple servers being used by former Secretary Clinton. How do you intend to locate any other devices or servers where emails may have been transferred or stored? Would you subpoena the FBI?
Gowdy: No. The committee on Benghazi only has subpoena power for people and documents. We don't have subpoena power for items. It would be inappropriate — to put it mildly — for a legislative branch entity to issue a subpoena to an executive branch investigatory entity. So I'm going to let the FBI do what it is that they are trained and experts at doing. My committee does not and never has had the power to subpoena a server. We do have the power to ask that she turn it over to a third party, which we have consistently done since March. There would necessarily be things on the server no matter how many servers may exist that would be beyond the scope of our committee. And my interest is in making sure the public record is complete as it relates to Libya and Benghazi, but there are lots of folks who have equities in her public record far beyond us. So it would need to be an entity that had more jurisdiction than our committee.
Examiner: Do you feel like you can get a complete record of what went on without talking to the FBI about what they uncover and Platte River Networks [the company that managed Clinton's email after she left the State Department], necessarily, about what they were involved in, in terms of handling her server and private network?
Gowdy: Well I don't know that you ever know that you have a complete public record, that's true no matter what your investigation is, whether it's this job or the job I had before this one. I wouldn't know who would tell you that you had everything. I mean, who's in a position to know that? We're going to ask the secretary when she comes in October. But the bureau, and perhaps it's just that I'm jaundiced because I used to work with them, they're not supposed to confirm nor deny the existence of an investigation. And the last thing the bureau would want or should have is someone injecting himself or herself into an investigation that doesn't have jurisdiction. I have jurisdiction in a number of arenas, but the national security would not be one of them, potential criminality is not one of them. And I'm not discussing just Secretary Clinton. The broad, I mean go back to Lois Lerner, we had certain abilities with respect to Lois Lerner, but the notion that we can pursue any criminal charge is just, I hate to take people back to civics, but the legislative branch doesn't have the power to do that.
Examiner: Do you yet know why there was no military response even on that night of the attack in Benghazi?
Gowdy: No. And I wouldn't be able to answer that question definitively until we talked to the last witness. You can talk to 99 and it may be the hundredth that provides the most compelling testimony or frankly the most credible, so there's reasons that you don't draw conclusions until you have talked to everyone that you can talk to and examine every document that you can examine. And again, harkening back to the job I'm most familiar with, there's a reason judges tell the jury not only can you not make up your mind to the very end, you can't even think about what you're going to do until the very end. I won't be able to answer that question until the last witness has been interviewed and the last document has been examined.
Examiner: Do you believe Hillary Clinton appears to be hiding something from your committee in particular?
Gowdy: Well hiding something denotes a level of science or intent that I am ill-equipped to know what is in anyone else's mind other than my own. I know that the State Department has been recalcitrant, and that is putting it mildly and politely, in responding to our committee's request for information. And it may very well be that the unique email arrangement she had with herself contributes to their recalcitrance, but frankly the State Department either knew or should have known that she was housing public records on her own server, and that takes us through the pendency of her tenure. Then fast forward to the day she left the State Department. There is no argument that she should have kept the public record at that point. Even assuming arguendo, and I reject it, but assume arguendo that her explanation of convenience persuades some. The need for convenience ended the day she was no longer secretary of state. So all of this, and it is my primary interest, all of what has happened with respect to her email arrangement and its progeny, I'm interested because I'm a citizen, I'm interested because I'm a member of Congress, but for purposes of our committee my interest is, are we ever going to have a guarantee that we have everything that is relevant so we could answer the question that the House asked us to answer? And it is undeniable that this email arrangement complicates our ability to do that. And you combine that with an executive branch that is neither transparent nor forthcoming with documents you are entitled to and it's been quite a slog for us in terms of being able to do the jobs we were asked to do.
Examiner: Do you think that her actual email arrangement itself had any impact on the events that transpired on the ground in Benghazi?
Gowdy: You used the word 'think' and I can't deal in those terms. I mean what I think is no more important than what the greeter at Walmart thinks. It's a fact-centric investigation and I won't be able to, the only way to answer that question is to have the full universe of documents that are responsive to our jurisdiction, which is not just Benghazi, it would also be documents related to Libya. And frankly it wasn't just Secretary Clinton that had and made use of private email. It was also some of her top aides, all of which has combined to make oversight difficult if not impossible. But you would have to ask them what their goal was. She said it's convenient; it was convenience. You're welcome to believe that if you would like, but there's another explanation that also starts with 'C' and that would be control.
An interesting theoretical scenario was recently posted here on FR that went something like this:
1. An Email to or from Hillary included the schedule and plans for Ambassador Christopher Stevens’ visit to Benghazi for the time-frame of the attack.
2. Hackers of the Hillary Server had access to that information.
3. Interested parties in Libya gained access to that information and planned and executed the attack that ended with the death of Ambassador Stevens.
That could be what happened. We don’t know but Hillary does.
And a Muzzie terrorist gets 72 Helen Thomas clones.
Justice can be harsh in hell.
HILLARY PLANS TO USE HER APPEARANCE BEFORE CONGRESS AS A CAMPAIGN FUND-RAISER: Hillary's Hollywood-based fund-raiser told the LA Times....”Hillary’s much-anticipated testimony on the Benghazi matter before a congressional committee, will allow her to “further showcase her strength as a candidate.”
=============================================
The Clintons never do anything unless it involves money. Bill was recently rushed to the mic b/c Hillary’s big-buck donors are holding-out.
LA TIMES REPORTS Her Super-PAC—”Priorities USA”— had a lackluster first quarter, raising just $15 million (a big chunk of it coming from Hollywierdos).
BILL WAS COACHED BY HILLARY'S FUND-RAISES TO SAY: “She is being attacked by 16 Republican campaigns and super PACs run by the Koch brothers, Karl Rove, et cetera. She needs resources to respond and put out a positive message. The super PAC is critically important at this stage of the campaign.”
He’s not running for Speaker of the House...
....why we avoid hell.
Not me! I got sent there remember? ;)
Hillary: “ I can’t recall”
400 times
Deja Vu all over again.
RIP Yogi
Most likely.
“”Hillary keeps saying she looks forward to testifying “”
She’s looking forward to it so much, they’ll have to start sobering her up at 5 am the day of her appearance.
How about someone blowing up the picture of Chris Stevens at that link and using it as a poster at all her campaign stops? She might have a heart attack the first time she saw it and that would be too bad but >>>>>> hey! it would be worth the effort.
They’ll have to order the black coffee by the gallon....LOL.
The number of times she’ll blame Republicans will also add up.
You left out one part. Stevens begged for increased security, and Hillary (herself) denied it, leaving him vulnerable. Didn’t I read that the Marine guards they did have had no bullets in their guns?
Not true.
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.