Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) revealed Thursday during a public hearing of the Benghazi House committee what kinds of questions his Republican colleagues asked Hillary Clinton ally Sidney Blumenthal during closed door testimony earlier this year.
Clinton was interrogated for hours Thursday by the House committee convened to investigate the 2012 terrorist attack in Libya.
Blumenthal testified before the committee in June, but his interrogation was conducted in secret.
Schiff said he couldn’t release the transcript of Blumenthal’s testimony himself, but could discuss “Sidney Blumenthal by the numbers.”
“Republicans asked more than 160 questions about Mr. Blumenthal’s relationship with and communications with the Clinton Foundation,” Schiff said. “But less than 20 questions about the Benghazi attacks.
“Republicans asked more than 50 questions about the Clinton foundation,” he said. “But only four questions about the security in Benghazi.”
“Republicans asked more than 270 questions about Blumenthal’s alleged business activities in Libya but no questions about the U.S. presence in Benghazi,” Schiff said.
Schiff added that Republicans asked about the liberal media watchdog Media Matters for America, which Blumenthal worked for, but didn’t ask about Ambassador Chris Stevens or other U.S. personnel who were killed in the Benghazi attack.
Watch Schiff’s comments:
Look at Hilary’s face on the split-screen. Is that the face of somebody’s whose figuring what an ad this long would cost or what?
Our side has been stellar in rebutting the GOPers. I just don’t know how what she did and didn’t say when the attack first happened has anything to do with what happened, and if this were really a truth seeking exercise they would realize this but we know that is not the purpose of this witch hunt.
Schiff & Smith have been terrific.
Poor HRC’s trying hard not to laugh at Roskam’s “theory”…
Surely her staff are. I think she’s feeling pretty good about her appear an e but it has to be monotonous to be asked the same shit over and over again and for what?
Roskam moves from “theory” to nag rather quickly, shorter than that long-ass “theory”…