This post is a mash-up of an interview yesterday on Fox News Sunday, and portions of previous statements made about Benghazi by Congressman Trey Gowdy (R-SC). Below are snippets of two video transcripts along with the videos. The Democrat talking points from Congressman Xavier Becerra (D-CA) would be funny if Democrats had not tried so baldly to keep evidence from the public. He even used the words “reckless and irresponsible” about the coming House Select Committee. More: “we participated in seven investigations,” “nothing new,” “want fair and balanced process,” “witch hunt,” “open and balanced process,” (and that, after Democrats shut Republicans out of every House ObamaCare committee that led to the actual legislation). Not only was ObamaCare secret, they bought votes and Becerra talks about “open, fair, balanced,” and had the audacity to intimate that only Democrats would respect “four dead Americans.”
I don’t think I’ve ever seen Chris Wallace be dogged about pressing Democrats on their hypocrisy, as he did in this interview. In fact, I’ve never seen him lean even slightly toward a conservative side, but there was one issue Wallace was having none of, and that’s the Democrat argument that the Dan Rhodes email contained nothing new or different from what has been known for 20 months. In the first video, watch Becerra’s face: patronizing, holding up his pitiful stack of papers from previous hearings, smug, impolite, making faces.
Wallace put up these demands to be met, issued from Nancy Pelosi, if Democrats are to participate on the House Select Committee:
• Democrats must sign off on subpoenas
• Democrats must be allowed to participate in witness interviews
• Republicans must not selectively release testimony
WALLACE: Congressman Becerra, I have a simple question. Are you saying that if you get satisfactory answers to those, the Democrats will participate, and if you don’t, that you won’t?
BECERRA: We’ve participated in all the other seven
investigations. If it’s a fair, open and balanced process, absolutely, but we don’t want to see reckless, irresponsible handling of an affair that took the lives of four brave Americans.
WALLACE: You’re saying that if you’re satisfied with the ground rules, you’re declaring that the Democrats will appoint members to this Committee?
BECERRA: I believe so. We’ve always said that we are ready to participate. We have an oversight responsibility in Congress. What we don’t want to see is reckless and irresponsibile use of taxpayer money to do these witch hunts.
WALLACE: Congressman Gowdy, is it reasonable for Democrats to demand some say in how the Committee is run?
GOWDY: No sir, and if you talk to the ranking members of the two sub-committees that have presided, Zoe Lofgren and Eleanor Holmes Norton, they will tell you, I don’t run my committees the way that Democrats are fearful of. I want a process Chris, that at the end of it, you are welcome to draw different conclusions from the from facts, but I want everyone to say, it was fair, it was exhaustive, and we know more than we did when it started, so on two of those three parts, I think reasonable minds can agree, but on the first point, Chris [Becerra continually trying to interrupt], imagine you and I starting an investigation, and the first thing you ask for is the ability to deny or veto subpoenas going to witnesses. How can it be a pursuit of the truth?
BECERRA: We’ve never asked for that Trey [but Nancy Pelosi clearly did]. What we are simply saying is, make it a process where we can’t be excluded from the interview of witnesses; where we can’t be excluded when a decision is made to subpoena a witness. Make it so that we are all in the room when we are reviewing the documents that are supposed to be evidence. What we don’t want to be is excluded. We don’t want the American public to be shut-out. Fair, balanced and open…
GOWDY: How does it benefit me, Xavier, when I have said from Day 1 that I want this to transcend politics and I want it to inspire trust in you and our fellow citizens. How does it benefit me to do any of the things you just listed?
Wallace asks how Gowdy answers those who say the Select Committee has the sole purpose to hurt Hillary Clinton’s chances for a 2016 presidential race?
GOWDY: I have no friends to reward and no foes to punish and we’re going to go wherever the facts take us. Facts are neither Republican nor Democrat. They are facts, and if we overplay our hand, and engage in a process that is not fair, according to the American people, we will be punished, as we should be for that.
WALLACE: Tell me the biggest single question you want to ask Secretary Clinton.
GOWDY: Why were we still in Benghazi? The British Ambassador was almost assassinated. Our facility was attacked twice. There were multiple episodes of violence. We were the last flag flying in Benghazi, and I would like to know why.
WALLACE: The Pew Research Center did a poll recently and I want to put its results up on the screen, because when asked what single thing they have the most negative view of in Hillary Clinton’s career, they cited Benghazi more than the Monica Lewinsky scandal [15% Benghazi more negative to 9% Monica Lewinsky negative]. People still have a lot questions about Hillary Clinton’s role.
BECERRA: Chris, so the year-and-a-half that was spent by seven different committees, didn’t answer — of course it did.
WALLACE: Wait, wait. You keep pointing to that. We didn’t fine out — and they had been subpoenaed — all the State Department documents [Becerra tries to break-in] — excuse me Sir, they had subpoenaed all the State Department documents and it took until last week for the Administration to finally to release the Ben Rhodes email, in which two days before Susan Rice appeared on this show, he was suggesting that she say that it was the video, not because of a policy failure.
BECERRA: You got yours. You know that that email shows nothing new. It simply…
WALLACE: I don’t agree with that. I think it shows something dramatically new, despite what the White House has been saying for the last year and a half, is shows that inside the White House they were telling Susan Rice what to say.
BECERRA: Chris, every time you get a witness or someone to come talk to you here, they are always going to try to prepare for that conversation with you.
WALLACE: That not what Jay Carney said for 20 months.
BECERRA: That email has nothing that is inconsistent with what the CIA and our security personnel were telling us at the time. It’s exactly the same, but if I can make one quick point, I love what Trey just said. I hope that Trey is going to stay true to what he just said. The rules, however, will determine if this is a fair process, not what Trey says. It’s whether the rules for the conduct of the hearing will provide for a fair, open and balanced process.
WALLACE: You brought up earlier, that I want to finish with Congressman Gowdy. You are saying that this is not political, this is just about fact finding, but as Congressman Becerra brought up, just this week, the National Republican Congressional Committee [NRCC], which is the Committee that supports GOP House candidates, sent out this fundraiser:
House Republicans will make sure that no one will get away from Gowdy and the Select Committee. Will you automatically add your name today to join us and become a Benghazi Watchdog?
This is a fundraiser coming down from the NRCC. Congressman Gowdy, isn’t this exactly the danger, the risk that you overstep your bounds, the GOP, not you personally, you overreach and you make this political and as Congressman Becerra mentioned, you end up, like, going on a political hunt, instead of dealing with issues that people deal with their daily lives, like ObamaCare and jobs?
GOWDY: Yes. Which is exactly why I said, I will never, and have never, sent out any fundraising literature, trying to raise money in the grief and the tragedy of four dead Americans, and I have asked my colleagues to follow suit, but my friend and colleague, Tommy Cotton, from Arkansas, did a magnificent job on the House floor of pointing out the duplicity and hypocrisy of Democrats all of a sudden, deciding that certain things are above politics. They raised money on Sandy Hook. They raised money on Katrina. They raised money on Iraq and Afghanistan, and so for me, I will not raise money on Benghazi, just like I never raised money using crime victims when I was a prosecutor; and I’ve asked my colleagues to follow suit but it would be helpful if our colleagues on the other side of the aisle did not have selective amnesia when it comes to what’s appropriate to raise money off of and what is not.
The second video below is Gowdy with a montage of his past comments on Benghazi. Here are a few snippets:
• There is nothing “phony” about four murdered Americans in Benghazi and he thinks there is, I encourage him to look at the autopsy photos.
• They stood their post. The most that we can do is stand this meager post that we’ve been assigned and demand that this administration speak the truth to the people it is supposed to serve. This was never about a video. It was never spontaneous. It was terror, and I want to know why we were lied to.
• So, if anyone wants to know what difference does it makes — anyone want to ask what difference does it make, it always matters, whether you can trust your government. And to the families, we’re going to find out what happened in Benghazi and I don’t give a damn who’s career is impacted. We’re going to find out what happened.
• I was a prosecutor for 16 years. This is not my first death threat. I’m always happy when it doesn’t come from my wife, and this one did not. I’m going to be fine. It’s not going to keep me from doing my job.
• I need all the evidence, all the documents, unredacted, and I need access to all the witnesses.
• You can draw all the conclusions you want, but you can’t draw any conclusion if you don’t have the evidence. You can say whatever else you want: he’s not smart, his suit doesn’t match, bad hair cut, but no one will tell you I’m not fair.
Remember Gowdy walking up a podium and immediately asking the media questions?
I’m going to ask you some questions and if you can’t answer these questions, then I’ll leave you to draw whatever conclusion you want to draw, about whether or not the media has provided sufficient oversight [on Benghazi].
1. Can you tell me why Chris Stevens was in Benghazi the night that he was killed? [silence] Do you know? [silence] Does it bother you whether or not you know why Chris Stevens was in Benghazi?
2. Do you know why we were the last flag flying in Benghazi after the British had left and the Red Cross had been bombed? [silence]
3. Do you know why additional requests for security were denied? [silence] Do you why an Ambassador asking for more security, days and weeks before he was murdered and those requests went unheeded? Do you know the answer to why those requests went unheeded?
4. Do you know why no assets were deployed during the siege? I’ve heard the explanations, which defy logic, frankly, that we couldn’t have gotten there in time, but you know, they didn’t know when it was going to end, so how can you possible cite that as an excuse?
5. Do you know whether the President called any of our allies and said, can you help? We have men under attack. Can you answer that? [silence]
6. Do any of you know why Susan Rice was picked? The Secretary of State did not go. She says she doesn’t like Sunday talk shows. That’s the only media venue she doesn’t like, if it’s true. Why was Susan Rice on the five Sunday talk shows? [silence]
7. Do know the origin of this mythology that it was spawned as a spontaneous reaction to a video? Do you know where that started? Do you know how we got from no evidence of that, to that being the official position of the administration?
No video for this, but Fox News’ Harris Faulkner had a panel
on Benghazi last night that revealed an astonishing fact, if indeed it is a fact. On the panel were John Leboutillier, Pat Caddell and Doug Schoen. Leboutillier said he hoped the House Select Committee on Benghazi would subpoena all those on the ground in Benghazi that night, who have been told they cannot testify and who must endure a polygraph MONTHLY (paraphrased but the words “polygraph” and “monthly” were his words). I did know they were not allowed to come forward and I had heard that they were polygraphed, but — monthly!
What do you think? Are all Benghazi survivors subjected to monthly polygraphs?
If you would like to receive Maggie’s Notebook daily posts direct to your inbox, no ads, no spam, EVER, enter your email address in the box below.