House Benghazi committee Chairman Rep. Trey Growdy (R-SC) bashed other GOP-led investigations into the 2012 terrorist attack in Libya on Thursday in an effort to defend the existence of his own.
The Select Committee on Benghazi has been under scrutiny since some Republicans suggested political motivations or effects of the investigation as former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton runs for President.
In his opening remarks ahead of Clinton’s testimony on Thursday, Gowdy launched into the questions he said the committee sought to answer.
“Even after an Accountability Review Board and half a dozen congressional investigations, these and other questions still lingered. These questions lingered because those previous investigations were not thorough,” Gowdy said. “These questions lingered because those previous investigations were narrow in scope and either incapable or unwilling to access the facts and evidence necessary to answer all relevant questions.”
Prior to the formation of Gowdy’s special committee, other committees investigated the attack:
- House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
- Senate Committee On Homeland Security And Governmental Affairs
- Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
- House Committee on Foreign Affairs
- House Committee on the Judiciary
- House Committee on Armed Services
- House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
Most of those committees were led by Republicans.
“You will hear there were previous congressional investigations into Benghazi. That is true. It should make you wonder why those previous investigations failed to interview so many witnesses and failed to access so many documents,” Gowdy said. “If those previous congressional investigations really were serious and thorough, how did they miss Ambassador Stevens’ emails?”
Democrats have pointed out that Stevens’ emails were available to the previous congressional investigations, including that of the Oversight Committee, of which Gowdy is also a member.
“If those investigations were serious and thorough, how did they miss Secretary Clinton’s emails?” Gowdy continued on Thursday. “If those previous congressional investigations were serious and thorough, why did they fail to interview dozens of key State Department witnesses including agents on the ground, who experienced the terrorist attacks firsthand?”
“Even after an Accountability Review Board and half a dozen congressional investigations, these and other questions still lingered.”
Teatroll Rosetta Stone: "“Even after an Accountability Review Board and half a dozen congressional investigations we still didn’t like the answers, because they weren’t what we wanted them to be.”
And Gowdy is well aware that the act of interviewing or deposing someone doesn’t make them a key witness. He’s engaged in circular logic on that score. You can interview all the people you want who have no insight or answers or relevant information…and there’s some indication that’s precisely what these goofs did to provide him with this very argument.
“Madame Secretary, under penalty of perjury, what is in your sock drawer?”
granny panties or g-strings?
These questions are only relevant if the interview reveals pertinent information that changes something. Otherwise you’re just admitting that you wasted additional resources to gain no further pertinent knowledge.