Search
Archives
Categories

Archive for the ‘Trey Gowdy’ Category

If ever there was a reason why progressive spinmeisters should steer clear of getting interviewed by Tucker Carlson, Jonathan Gruber’s interview offers the biggest reason to avoid Carlson. During the interview, Carlson caught Gruber in his spin at least half a dozen times. Throughout most of the interview, Dr. Gruber came across as elitist and intellectually outmatched.

When Carlson asked Gruber why recent polling showed fairly strong disapproval of Obamacare, Dr. Gruber replied “I think they feel that way because there’s been a lot of misinformation about what the law has done.” Carlson immediately picked up on that, inquiring “You once famously said that the law got passed because of the stupidity of the American voter, not understanding the intricacies of the funding of this law. You since apologized but it seems as though you still feel that way. You just said people don’t like it because they don’t understand it. But I mean, it’s their health care. Are they that dumb that they don’t understand how great it is?”

That led to another misstep by Dr. Gruber when he said “Tucker, that isn’t what I said. What I said was inartful. That’s why I apologized.” Let’s get honest about something. What Dr. Gruber said wasn’t inartful. It was intentional. It was repeated:

Something that’s repeated that often isn’t off-the-cuff. It’s intentional. It’s elitist, too. Then there’s this exchange:

CARLSON: I thought this law was supposed to help everybody.
DR. GRUBER: This law was never supposed to help everybody, Tucker. The law was actually supposed to leave the vast majority of Americans alone.

That isn’t true. The plan was always intended to push people into policies that the ACA’s architects were pushing. That’s why Politifact rated President Obama’s statement that “If you like your health care plan, you can keep it” as their Lie of the Year” a few years back. Dr. Gruber was exposed as a political shill Wednesday night. It isn’t that Dr. Gruber was “inartful.” It isn’t that he wanted people to keep their health care plans that they liked. It’s that he wanted to tell the people he thinks of as too stupid what’s best for them.
Watch this entire video. It’s a frightening insight into a progressive elitist’s mind:

Finally, this Trey Gowdy interrogation of Dr. Gruber is must-see TV:

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , ,

This article reminded me of something I’d hoped I’d forgotten forever. The article reminded me that the Clintons are the original Alinskyite administration. Seriously, long before Tony Rezko had corrupted the Obamas, the Clintons were painting their political opponents as political boogeymen.

Newt Gingrich was the Clinton’s first boogeyman. Dick Armey was the Clintons next boogeyman. Tom DeLay was the final boogeyman of Bill Clinton’s administration. They taught the Democratic Party how to paint conservatives as boogeymen. During the Obama administration, Democrats painted ALEC, the Club for Growth, Americans for Prosperity, the TEA Party and, most importantly, the Koch Brothers as political boogeymen.

Before she’s even been elected, Mrs. Clinton is attempting to paint FBI Director Jim Comey as the latest boogeyman. That’s the Clinton’s habit. The Clintons understand that they’re seen as sleazy people. That doesn’t bother them a bit because they’re comfortable with rolling around in the mud. That’s who they are. That’s who they associate themselves with.

In the 1990s, after President Clinton got caught with his pants down, literally, Hillary dispatched Jim Carville to intimidate Paula Jones. Carville’s now-infamous line was “If you drag a hundred-dollar bill through a trailer park, you never know what you’ll find.”

Trey Gowdy, quite possibly the sharpest person in Congress, isn’t buying into Mrs. Clinton’s attempts to tarnish Dir. Comey’s reputation:

Here’s part of what Rep. Gowdy said in response to the Clinton campaign’s attempt to paint Dir. Comey as the villain:

GOWDY: Yeah, that’s an old trick, Bret. Blame the cops. If you’re being investigated, you blame the cops. Jim Comey is not responsible for a single one of the facts at hand. He didn’t tell her to use a private server. He didn’t tell Huma not to turn over all of her devices. And God knows he didn’t tell Anthony Wiener to allegedly send sexually explicit texts to allegedly underage people so Comey’s not responsible for any of this. The timing is a direct and natural consequence of decisions that Hillary Clinton made. So I get that Podesta is upset. Bret, remember that he didn’t even know about the email situation and then he thought that it had been taken care of by Cheryl Mills and Patrick Kennedy so I get that he’s frustrated. He’s just frustrated at the wrong person.

Mrs. Clinton established the home-brew server to hide emails from FOIA requests. If Mrs. Clinton hadn’t insisted on hiding public information from the public, none of this would have become an issue. Period. She would’ve coasted to the White House if not for this email scandal.

It’s a given that the Clintons will use Alinsky’s tactics to push their way through their scandals. Their habit is to make things about the boogeymen they’ve created, not the boogeymen they are.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

If I could pass a law or if I could mandate a particular type of behavior, I’d require every senator and every representative from both parties ask the types of probing, cut-through-the-BS questions that Trey Gowdy consistently asks.

Chairman Gowdy isn’t into grandstanding. He isn’t prone to making speeches for the purpose of scoring political points. He’s prone to doing his homework first so he’s a self-taught expert on whatever subject he’s addressing. He’s prone to asking questions that elicit informative, substantive answers that enlighten citizens and exposes politicians.

It isn’t difficult to think that Loretta Lynch was squirming while she was being questioned by Chairman Gowdy. Watch this video and tell me whether you think Chairman Gowdy is making Ms. Lynch squirm. I’m thinking Ms. Lynch’s answers made Mrs. Clinton squirm, too. One of the questions that likely made Mrs. Clinton squirm came when Chairman Gowdy asked Ms. Lynch “Why do you think it’s important to use official email to conduct official business”?

That likely didn’t make Mrs. Clinton squirm as much as when Chairman Gowdy said “I doubt that you even use your usdoj -dot- gov account to send classified information, do you?” Ms. Lynch replied that she didn’t use that account, noting that “we have separate systems. There would be a classified system for that.” That’s when Chairman Gowdy moved in for the kill against Mrs. Clinton:

GOWDY: So not only do you not use personal email. You don’t even use your usdoj -dot- gov account. You’ve got a separate, dedicated system to handle classified information. Why?
LYNCH: We have a separate system to handle security needs.
GOWDY: But my question is why. Why is it important to you to not use your personal email to conduct official business and to use a separate system, more safely-guarded system when you do handle classified information?
GOWDY: But it’s not just a personal preference, is it?
LYNCH: It allows for the protection of the information.

It’s painfully obvious that Hillary knew that was the system. It’s painfully obvious because she once was a US senator who had to obey the rules established by the committee chairs on viewing confidential information. Mrs. Clinton had been to Sensitive Compartmented Information Facilities, aka SCIFs. SCIFs are defined as “accredited area, room, group of rooms, or installation where sensitive compartmented information may be stored, used, discussed, or electronically processed.” Access is limited. Electronic devices aren’t allowed to be brought into a SCIF because of the sensitive information stored in SCIFs.

Knowing about the existence of and the purpose for SCIFs, why did Mrs. Clinton ignore that phalanx of security precautions and use a system that a high school kid could hack into? Was it because Mrs. Clinton didn’t care about protecting top secret information? Or was it because Mrs. Clinton wanted to hide her emails from the public at all costs? Or did she do it for both reasons?

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

Approximately 5 minutes into this video, Hillary ‘admits’ that she made a mistake, saying “But, look, I have said that I made a mistake using my personal email. I regret that and I — uh — am grateful that this matter has been fully investigated and has been closed and it’s time to move on.”

Scott Pelley’s next question let Hillary off the hook. Pelley asked Mrs. Clinton “Well were you extremely careless”? Predictably, Hillary hit that question out of the proverbial park, saying “No, I was not and neither were the 300 people who sent me that material, Scott. You know, the vast majority of the material was sent to me. It was forwarded to me from professionals, from people who I have said, who had a lot of experience dealing with classified material. I do not think they were careless and I have a very high regard for the professionals in the State Department so I believe that they knew that they were doing so I had no reason to question or second guess their opinions.”

The question wasn’t whether “the professionals at the State Department” could be trusted. The question was whether Mrs. Clinton and Mrs. Clinton’s political team were trustworthy. Based on what the FBI has told us about Mrs. Clinton’s mishandling of some of the most secret information imaginable, that isn’t much of a debatable matter. Why Pelley asked such a softball question makes me question his interviewing capabilities.

Further, Mrs. Clinton said that she’d made a mistake using her personal email. That isn’t the truth, either. The definition of mistake is “an error in action, calculation, opinion, or judgment caused by poor reasoning, carelessness, insufficient knowledge, etc.” That isn’t what happened. Mrs. Clinton did the wrong thing but it wasn’t a mistake. She didn’t exclusively use her private email account and her private email server because of “poor reasoning” or “carelessness.” She did it intentionally to hide her emails. That’s why Trey Gowdy’s questioning of FBI Director Comey was so important:

Here’s the key exchange:

GOWDY: I’m not going to ask you about any other false statements but I am going to ask you to put on your old hat. False exculpatory statements — they are used for what?
COMEY: Well, either for a substantive prosecution, or for evidence of intent in a criminal prosecution.
GOWDY: Exactly. Intent and consciousness of guilt right?
COMEY: Right.
GOWDY: Consciousness of guilt and intent. In your old job, you would prove intent, as you just referenced, by showing the jury evidence of a complex scheme that was designed for the very purpose of concealing the public record and you would be arguing in addition to the concealment that you and I just talked about but also the failure to preserve. You would do all of that under the heading of intent. You would also being arguing the pervasiveness of the scheme — when it started, when it ended and the number of emails, whether they were originally classified or up-classified — you would argue all of that under the heading of intent.

There is a word that’s appropriate for what Mrs. Clinton did but it isn’t mistake. The appropriate word is deception. The definition of deception is “something that deceives or is intended to deceive.”

Rep. Gowdy had already established that there were sufficient examples of Mrs. Clinton’s dishonesty. In fact, he established that fact by citing a litany of examples of Mrs. Clinton being dishonest. That’s ample circumstantial proof that Mrs. Clinton was intentionally attempting to deceive people. Mrs. Clinton lied when she said her attorneys had read every email. Mrs. Clinton lied when she said that she’d turned over all work-related emails. FBI Director Comey said the FBI found “thousands” of work-related emails that Mrs. Clinton didn’t turn over.

How can a person tell the FBI that much inaccurate information and not be lying? What are the odds that Mrs. Clinton told people that many things that weren’t accurate without lying intentionally? I’d say that the odds of that were astronomical.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , ,

It isn’t a secret that the media has seen protecting President Obama and Hillary Clinton as one of their primary responsibilities. Still, it’s stunning that it’s outdone itself with this Miami Herald editorial.

With regards to absolving Hillary of all wrongdoing, it created a preposterous argument, saying “Yes, it found a series of failings by the national security bureaucracy, but here’s what else it did: Cleared former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton of the absurd accusation that she somehow knew about the attack on the diplomatic compound in Libya before it happened and did nothing about it.” That’s breathtakingly dishonest. I’ve followed this story for almost 4 years. In that time, I’ve never heard anyone accuse Mrs. Clinton of knowing “about the attack on the diplomatic compound before it happened and did nothing about it.”

What has happened is that people accused Mrs. Clinton of not acting on repeated requests from Christopher Stevens for additional security. Then as now, Democrats have insisted that the cables, many of them labeled as urgent, never were brought to Mrs. Clinton’s attention. Then as now, nobody outside of her inner circle believes her. That’s why her honest and trustworthy numbers stink.

This part really stinks:

The GOP-led committee’s desire to find evidence of malfeasance by Ms. Clinton to support all the conspiracy theories surrounding Benghazi went unfulfilled. Had there been real facts to support it, surely this committee would have found it.

First, the thing that sets Benghazi apart from other tragic events is the relative scarcity of conspiracy theories of what happened that night. Next, this article highlights the evidence showing the utter incompetence of Mrs. Clinton and the disinterest shown by President Obama and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta:

The following facts are among the many new revelations in Part I:

  • Despite President Obama and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta’s clear orders to deploy military assets, nothing was sent to Benghazi, and nothing was en route to Libya at the time the last two Americans were killed almost 8 hours after the attacks began. [pg. 141]
  • With Ambassador Stevens missing, the White House convened a roughly two-hour meeting at 7:30 PM, which resulted in action items focused on a YouTube video, and others containing the phrases “[i]f any deployment is made,” and “Libya must agree to any deployment,” and “[w]ill not deploy until order comes to go to either Tripoli or Benghazi.” [pg. 115]
  • The Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff typically would have participated in the White House meeting, but did not attend because he went home to host a dinner party for foreign dignitaries. [pg. 107]
  • A Fleet Antiterrorism Security Team (FAST) sat on a plane in Rota, Spain, for three hours, and changed in and out of their uniforms four times. [pg. 154]
  • None of the relevant military forces met their required deployment timelines. [pg. 150]
  • The Libyan forces that evacuated Americans from the CIA Annex to the Benghazi airport was not affiliated with any of the militias the CIA or State Department had developed a relationship with during the prior 18 months. Instead, it was comprised of former Qadhafi loyalists who the U.S. had helped remove from power during the Libyan revolution. [pg. 144]

How can a patriotic American read that information and not be infuriated? That the Miami Herald read that and dismissed it says that a) there aren’t any patriots on the Miami Herald’s Editorial Board and b) the Miami Herald’s Editorial Board can’t be trusted to offer insightful, honest opinions about the biggest events of our time. That’s how it can say this with a straight face:

The report, a product of the longest Congressional investigation in memory on possible wrongdoing in the executive branch, longer than Watergate or 9/11, went a bit further and deeper than the earlier ones, but the general outline was already known.

TRANSLATION: This report was far more detailed than the other ‘investigations’ but we the media have already determined the narrative we’re going to push. If it conflicts with the truth, then the truth be damned. It’s the narrative, damn it.

Watch Andrea Mitchell’s interview of Chairman Gowdy. Then tell me his committee didn’t uncover important new information:

If this plethora of new information doesn’t constitute important new information, what would constitute something new and important?

Technorati: Hillary Clinton, Christopher Stevens, Benghazi Terrorist Attack, Leon Panetta, Barack Obama, Miami Herald Editorial Board, Media Bias, Trey Gowdy, House Select Committee on Benghazi, Benghazi Report

Donald Trump isn’t the only presidential candidate that doesn’t hesitate in laying things on a little too thick. Based on this article, Ted Cruz fits that description, too. Wednesday afternoon, Sen. Cruz sat down for an interview with Jeff Kuhner. Kuhner opened by asking “Is Marco Rubio a genuine conservative?” He asked that after listing Rubio’s support for “open borders,” “NSA spying,” and the Obama administration’s Trans Pacific Partnership during an onstage interview.

Sen. Cruz’s reply was predictable, though a bit dishonest. Cruz said “On each of the issues you just listed, Marco’s views are virtually indistinguishable from Hillary Clinton. Let me say this, if we nominate a candidate who’s pro-amnesty, we’ll lose. It’s not complicated. It’s real simple.”

First, Sen. Cruz’s support for taking tools away from the NSA is disappointing. If Sen. Cruz wants to defend taking away a valuable tool from our intelligence-gathering community, let’s hear him make that part of his stump speech. Sen. Cruz has the opportunity to explain why he thinks it’s wise to seriously limit the NSA’s abilities without hurting people’s civil rights. I’d love to hear Sen. Cruz’s explanation.

Further, Mrs. Clinton doesn’t support TPP. Apparently, Ted won’t let little things like the facts get in the way of an old-fashioned ad hominem attack against one of his chief rivals.

Third, Sen. Cruz isn’t being honest when he says that Marco supports amnesty. Here’s what Sen. Rubio supports:

Marco has consistently advocated fixing America’s immigration system, beginning with securing our border, enforcing immigration laws in the workplace, and implementing effective visa tracking systems.

That sounds a lot like Sen. Cruz’s plan. This does, too:

Starting on Day One of his presidency, Marco will be focused on immigration security.

He will:

  1. Cancel President Obama’s unconstitutional executive orders
  2. Eliminate federal funding for sanctuary cities
  3. Deport criminal illegal aliens
  4. Hire 20,000 new Border Patrol agents
  5. Finish all 700 miles of walls on our southern border
  6. Implement an entry-exit visa tracking system
  7. Implement a mandatory eVerify system
  8. Install $4 billion in new cameras and sensors on the border

If that doesn’t sound like the Gang of Eight bill, it’s because it isn’t similar to the Gang of Eight bill.

If Sen. Cruz is serious about this, then we’re in trouble:

Cruz pointed to the 2012 election as evidence for his theory and noted the Republican Party got clobbered after nominating Mitt Romney, whose record on healthcare caused headaches for conservatives seeking contrast with Obamacare.

That’s breathtaking. Comparing Mitt Romney with Sen. Rubio is like comparing Tim Scott with Mitch McConnell. Comparing Mitt Romney with Sen. Rubio is like comparing Trey Gowdy with Lindsey Graham. It’s a preposterous comparison. Nobody thought that Mitt Romney was a conservative. No less a conservative’s conservative than Rush Limbaugh called Sen. Rubio “a legitimate, full-throated conservative.”

Listening only to Sen. Cruz, you’d think that Sen. Rubio was an establishment RINO. It isn’t just that the facts don’t support Sen. Cruz’s opinion. It’s that a conservative’s conservative, Rush Limbaugh, rejects this opinion.

This points to a simple question: when will Sen. Cruz stop with the exaggerations?

Normally, Kirsten Powers is one of the somewhat sane liberals in the national media. Ms. Powers’ latest USA Today article proves that there’s an exception to every rule.

The subject of Ms. Powers’ latest column is last week’s Benghazi hearing. According to Ms. Powers, who seems to have digested the Democrats’ chanting points then regurgitated them for this column, Republicans “bungling and bullying at Thursday’s hearing should count as an in-kind donation to the Clinton campaign.” Of course, Ms. Powers then said that what “happened in Benghazi matters” before saying that “investigating security failures, especially those that resulted in the deaths of Americans, is a laudable endeavor.”

Unfortunately, she then asked “does anyone really believe that’s what the Republicans were up to last week?”

The reason I suspect that this is a world-class spin job is this question:

But is it really a mystery as to why a friend of at least two decades would have her email address?

That’s spin. It isn’t surprising that Sid Blumenthal would have Hillary’s email address. It’s that Christopher Stevens didn’t have it. This emphasizes the point:

“During the hearing Michael McFaul tweeted, “As ambassador in Russia, I enjoyed multiple ways to communicate with Secretary Clinton. Email was never one of them.”

Actually, McFaul might’ve highlighted something important in that tweet. Clearly, he was able to “communicate with Secretary Clinton.” Why wasn’t Ambassador Stevens able to communicate directly with Mrs. Clinton? It’s clear that Stevens tried getting Mrs. Clinton’s attention often. According to documentation introduced at the hearing, Christopher Stevens literally made hundreds of requests for additional security.

According to Mrs. Clinton’s testimony, she never received a single request. She said that she “neither rejected or approved” any of Christopher Stevens’ security requests.

Ms. Powers says that “hate-blinded Republicans” bungled the hearing. That’s a cheap shot and then some. Republicans weren’t blinded with hate. They were determined to find out why Mrs. Clinton failed to protect Christopher Stevens, the man Mrs. Clinton called her “dear friend.” Is it typical for Mrs. Clinton to treat dear friends like that? If it is, then I’m thankful I’m not one of Hillary’s dear friends.

Does Ms. Powers think that it isn’t a big deal that Mrs. Clinton repeatedly told the American people for well over a week that a video caused the terrorist attack after telling her daughter that it was a terrorist attack? Does Ms. Powers think it isn’t a big deal that Mrs. Clinton told the Egyptian prime minister and the Libyan president that Christopher Stevens died in a terrorist attack?

If asking tough questions of Mrs. Clinton is bullying, then this nation’s best days are in its past. If trying to hold Mrs. Clinton accountable for her decisions is proof that Republicans hat Mrs. Clinton, then Ms. Powers has a dramatically different definition of hatred than I do. Does Ms. Powers think Mike Pompeo bullied Mrs. Clinton when he asked her why nobody at the State Department got fired for not approving Christopher Stevens’ requests for additional security? Does Ms. Powers think Susan Brooks bullied Mrs. Clinton when she asked Mrs. Clinton if she ever talked with Christopher Stevens after he was sworn in as U.S. ambassador to Libya?

Personally, I’d call those important, thoughtful questions proof that Republicans on that committee took their jobs seriously.

Finally, I’d love hearing Ms. Powers response to whether these questions are either a) inappropriate or b) proof that I’m trying to bully Mrs. Clinton.

During her testimony Thursday at the House Select Committee on Benghazi, Hillary Clinton made some exotic statements that require follow-up questioning. During Rep. Adam Schiff’s, (D-CA), first round of questioning, Hillary testified that “I’ve thought more about what happened than all the rest of you put together. I’ve lost more sleep than all the rest of you put together. I have been racking my brain about what more could’ve been done or should’ve been done.”

Stephen Hayes’ article includes a quote from Charles Woods, the father of murdered American patriot Ty Woods, about what he was looking for at the hearing. In the quote, Mr. Woods said “The truth, hopefully.” One of the unasked questions from Thursday’s hearing relates to Mrs. Clinton’s statement that she’s racked her brain about what more could’ve been done. The proper follow-up questions should’ve been ‘Mrs. Clinton, while you were thinking about what more could’ve been done, did you think that you should’ve contacted Christopher Stevens directly? After all, you knew from your daily CIA briefings that the security situation in Benghazi was rapidly deteriorating. At minimum, shouldn’t you have directed your staff in charge of embassy security to contact Ambassador Stevens directly to see if his security was adequate?’

Another important question that didn’t get asked was with regards to the steep decline in email traffic between Mrs. Clinton and her staff about Libya. In 2011, there were sometimes hourly updates on Libya. The stack of printed out emails for 2011 was almost a foot high. The pile of emails for 2012 was 67 pages. Mrs. Clinton explained that little of her communications were via email. The proper follow-up question should’ve been ‘How do you explain the significant use of emails in 2011 to the virtual elimination of using emails to communicate in 2012? Mrs. Clinton, what caused you to virtually stop using emails in 2012 after using prolific amounts of emails in 2011?

During one of his outbursts, Elijah Cummings wondered aloud why people focused on Sid Blumenthal. The easy explanation is that Mrs. Clinton promptly replied to more than 180 of Mr. Blumenthal’s emails compared with Mrs. Clinton’s testimony that she never approved or rejected Christopher Stevens’ requests for additional security because they never got to her desk.

The logical question at that point should’ve been ‘Mrs. Clinton, how can you justify prompt responses, many of which happened while you were in the State Department Building, to an employee at the Clinton Foundation, especially considering the fact that you never responded to security requests from your ambassador serving in one of the biggest hot spots for terror in the world? Shouldn’t you have put a higher priority on making sure U.S. ambassadors are safe than you put on responding to Clinton Foundation employees?’

During questioning by Rep. Jim Jordan, (R-OH), the American people found out that Mrs. Clinton told daughter Chelsea that “two” people had been killed by al-Qa’ida-inspired terrorists less than an hour after she’d issued an official statement that suggested a video sparked an attack in Benghazi. Here’s part of Mrs. Clinton’s testimony:

And if you look at what I said, I referred to the video that night in a very specific way. I said, some have sought to justify the attack because of the video.

The logical question should be which people “have sought to justify the attack because of the video”?

Isn’t it reasonable to say that Mrs. Clinton’s priorities were badly wrong? Isn’t it reasonable to ask why she put a higher priority on taking time during a terrorist attack to tell her daughter about a terrorist attack while the terrorist attack was still being fought? In 2008, Mrs. Clinton ran a campaign ad about a phone call coming in at 3:00 am that suggested she, not Barack Obama, was the only one prepared to take that call.

The call from Libya came in at 5:00 pm ET. Mrs. Clinton and President Obama both failed to protect Christopher Stevens and 3 other American Patriots. Then they failed to tell the American people the truth about the terrorists’ coordinated attacks. Doesn’t that mean that the biggest unanswered question should be whether either of them was qualified to be commander-in-chief?

Here’s Hillary’s racking my brain video:

Nobody will ever be able to accuse Lanny Davis of not being loyal to Hillary Clinton. In fact, the accusation that people could make is that he’s so loyal to Hillary Clinton that he’s willing to shill for Hillary rather than doing the right thing for the nation.

This morning, Davis’ op-ed instructs Republicans to ask Hillary some questions, starting with “Secretary Clinton, can you tell us why you appointed the Accountability Review Board, chaired by Ambassador Thomas Pickering and Adm. Michael Mullen, to investigate the Benghazi tragedy and what was the result of their work?”

Davis then replies that if Republicans did that they’d find “she gave the board, led by a former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations under Republican President George H.W. Bush and a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs, complete independence and access. She committed ahead of time, unlike any prior secretaries before her, to full transparency. And when she published the full report (except for some classified material), she immediately accepted all the board’s recommendations to correct “systemic failures” of the department prior to and during the tragedy, and took responsibility.”

It’s a great question if your interest is to distract attention away from the ARB’s failure to actually investigate the murder of 4 American patriots. Mssrs. Pickering and Mullen didn’t interview any of the high ranking officials in the State Department who were responsible for security in Benghazi. They didn’t question Secretary Clinton about what information got to her desk. They didn’t ask her if she was aware of the increasing terrorist activity in the area. They didn’t ask her why Christopher Stevens’ urgent requests for additional security were rejected. They didn’t ask Secretary Clinton why her senior staff reduced Christopher Stevens’ security staff in Benghazi.

That’s before asking them why they didn’t bother getting Secretary Clinton’s emails or getting Christopher Stevens’ emails. Without communications documentation between Hillary’s senior staff and Christopher Stevens, it’s impossible to know who failed to protect Christopher Stevens.

Anyone that thinks that the ARB did a thorough investigation isn’t worth listening to. I’m being charitable when I say that the ARB’s investigation and report are incomplete.

Secretary Clinton, as you know, seven other congressional committees have investigated the Benghazi attack. Is there anything they missed that we should be looking into?

Of course, if Gowdy and the Republican members ask this question, they will have to try to explain why their committee exists at all (other than the anti-Clinton reason that everyone knows) unless they are willing to criticize other Republican Benghazi committees for not doing an adequate job, such as the Republican-controlled House Armed Services and Intelligence committees, which published extensive reports and findings about Benghazi.

I’m perfectly willing to accuse these other committees of not conducting a thorough investigation. They didn’t know that Hillary had a private, unsecured, email server. That’s a glaring, unforgiveable, mistake that these 7 committees made.

It’s proof that they didn’t conduct thorough investigations.

Secretary Clinton, did your choice to use a single BlackBerry to send out emails during your tenure as secretary of State rather than two, or your decision to store emails on a private server at your home, have any impact whatsoever on the tragic events of what happened at Benghazi and its aftermath?

Of course, the truthful, and indisputable, answer to this question is: No. Gowdy and his fellow Republicans know this.

Every single member who asks any question about emails, Gowdy, Brooks, Jordan, Pompeo, Roby, Roskam and Westmoreland, should be asked by the media and all constituents back home who care about wasteful government spending: How can you justify spending almost $5 million of taxpayer money when you have uncovered nothing new, duplicated spending by fellow Republicans, and have spent so much time on a subject having nothing to do with the tragedy at Benghazi?

Mr. Davis, how do you know that this committee hasn’t uncovered new information? While it’s certain that committee Democrats have funneled information to the Clinton campaign, I’m equally certain that Mr. Davis would be willing to ignore new information, especially if it’s damaging to Hillary, in writing a dishonest op-ed while defending Secretary Clinton’s indefensible actions.

First, Kevin McCarthy insisted that the House Select Committee on Benghazi was designed to cut into Hillary Clinton’s favorable/unfavorable ratings. It didn’t matter that Rep. McCarthy was an outsider. His words were treated like they were etched in stone tablets atop Mount Sinai. Now, another outsider, Rep. Richard Hanna, (R-NY), has stepped forward to opine that the Benghazi Committee is all about politics. When Rep. Hanna said “This may not be politically correct, but I think that there was a big part of this investigation that was designed to go after people and an individual, Hillary Clinton”, he said it without confirming what the Committee has spent its time doing.

Simply put, it’s an uninformed opinion. If Rep. Hanna would’ve said that he talked with committee staff who showed him documentation showing that they’d been pulled off of one investigation to start investigating Hillary, and if Rep. Hanna named the committee staffer, then I’d have something concrete to buy into.

Rep. Hanna later said “After what Kevin McCarthy said, it’s difficult to accept at least a part of it was not. I think that’s the way Washington works. But you’d like to expect more from a committee that’s spent millions of dollars and tons of time.”

Listen to those weasel words:

it’s difficult to accept at least a part of it was not.

If Rep. Hanna had documented proof, he wouldn’t have to accept anything. He’d be able to say that he can provide documentation that proves that part of the Committee’s assignment was to cripple Mrs. Clinton’s campaign.

Forgive me for being skeptical but I can’t classify this as anything but ironclad innuendo.