Was the Benghazi Committee ‘Designed To Go After’ Clinton?

2015-10-15T12:16:14-04:00

A second House Republican has now conceded that the overarching purpose of the House Select Committee on Benghazi has been to attack former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

In September, House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) argued that one of House Republicans’ successes has been using the Benghazi Committee to drive down Clinton’s poll numbers. Though McCarthy tried to walk back his controversial comments, Rep. Richard Hanna (R-NY) argued on Wednesday that the Majority Leader had it right to begin with.

“Sometimes the biggest sin you can commit in D.C. is to tell the truth,” Hanna said in an interview on Keeler in the Morning, a radio show in upstate New York. The third-term congressman paused for a moment, perhaps recognizing the importance of what he was about to say, before going on to agree with McCarthy’s original statement.

“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,” Hanna said.

He explained further why he believes the Benghazi Committee’s purpose has been in part to attack Clinton. “After what Kevin McCarthy said, it’s difficult to accept at least a part of it was not,” Hanna said. “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.”
For years, House Republicans had claimed the Benghazi probe was about investigating the events surrounding the 2012 attack in Libya that left four Americans dead, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens, rather than undermining Clinton’s potential presidential bid.

But after McCarthy’s Kinsley gaffe, which was among the factors that doomed his seemingly-inevitable rise to the House Speakership, and now Hanna’s admission, there is growing doubt even among GOPers about the Benghazi Committee’s true purpose.

McCarthy and Hanna aren’t the only Republicans to publicly declare that the Benghazi Committee has been on a partisan quest. Over the weekend, Maj. Bradley Podliska, a Republican investigator formerly working on the Committee, revealed that he had lost his job for refusing to solely focus his investigation on Clinton. Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC), who heads the Committee, denies the charge.

Clinton is set to testify before the Committee, which has now continued longer than the Watergate probe, on October 22nd.

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2015/10/14/3712578/richard-hanna-benghazi-clinton/

Second Republican Congressman Admits Benghazi Committee Was ‘Designed To Go After’ Clinton

"Sometimes the biggest sin you can commit in D.C. is to tell the truth," the New York Republican said.

Response by PO3 Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 15 at 2015 12:20 PM

2015-10-15T12:20:37-04:00

Wait .... a murder investigation of XYZ is "design to go after" XYZ .... hmmm ... lol

I know...I know ... it is all political gaming ... lol but If she didn't done anything ... what she fear of?

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Oct 15 at 2015 12:29 PM

2015-10-15T12:29:12-04:00

"Why can't it be both?"

Disclaimer: Not a Republican. Not a Democrat. Just making an assessment of what I think "may" stress "may" have happened.

1) Benghazi goes down.
2) Someone says "Let's find out what happened"
3) Ms. Clinton's involvement is found to be "suspect" (making no judgement. Just using a vague word to highlight the situation)
4) Confirmation bias takes place, and the investigation becomes more of a "rabbit hole" of "Do we really want her?" than a tailored "Let's find out what happened"

After 3 years of this, the original intent, and goals have likely evolved greatly. It's possible things are nowhere near what was originally intended.

Response by Col Joseph Lenertz made Oct 15 at 2015 12:29 PM

2015-10-15T12:29:42-04:00

Politicians doing something for political reasons? Shock-face!

Response by LTC Kevin B. made Oct 15 at 2015 12:31 PM

2015-10-15T12:31:30-04:00

Not surprised. I'm actually pleased to see some people actually acknowledging the real reasons behind the investigation, rather than continuing with the disingenuous narrative that it's really about understanding what happened on the ground (and preventing it from happening again). Maybe they'll stop wasting taxpayer money by either a) focusing on preventing future Benghazis or b) solving other real issues facing our society.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 15 at 2015 12:31 PM

2015-10-15T12:31:43-04:00

This is horseshit. Hillary deserves this. She is as corrupt and Trey Gowdy will pin her lying ass to the wall. not all Republicans are honest.. This 2nd one is a traitor too! This is a political hatchet job and you are a mouthpiece for Hillary/

Response by LTC Stephen F. made Oct 15 at 2015 12:40 PM

2015-10-15T12:40:59-04:00

The fact that Hillary Rodham Clinton was Secretary of State before during after the Benghazi affair means that investigating her offices role and her own role makes perfect sense CPT Ahmed Faried. It would be very suspicious if Congress were not investigating her role in the events leading up to the Benghazi affair, during it, and afterwards during the cleanup phase.
After all the FBI is still investigating the email server(s) that she used during this period. I realize the public is not entitled to know the sensitive information that was contained in the emails and the investigative processes should be allowed to run their courses with as little fanfare and leaking as possible.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 15 at 2015 1:00 PM

2015-10-15T13:00:17-04:00

Unquestionably, this is a partisan quest to bring to light uncomfortable facts about 9/11/12 that the administration and Mrs Clinton will find politically damaging. Initially, this was particularly cynical as Republicans that knew darn well what had happened and why a cover story was circulated purposefully asked questions that administration officials could not answer without compromising the activities that were going on in Libya at the time.
However...
Some very uncomfortable facts led to some very telling conclusions, ones that do have bearing on whether or not Mrs Clinton is fit to move on to a higher position.
1. As the attack unfolded, standby elements were told to stand down any attempts to intercede. Who made that call and why?
2. Later that week, we were told there were no effective assets in range to affect the situation in time. Really? There isn't a wing of F-16s in Aviano? An aircraft carrier somewhere in the Med? An SF Group in Germany? Robust SF assets in HOA and North Africa? An entire Airborne Brigade in Viscenza? Hell, assets could have flown there from the States in 13 hours! This defies explanation. Most likely is that the people making the call dithered in their deliberations, expecting the attack to be over soon, and failed to execute necessary movement to get assets in a position to execute a rescue. That is awfully damning to decision-makers in the CoC. Odds are extremely high that was a call made by a civilian official in the top six.
3. There are a number of items that link Benghazi to the chain of events in Syria. Juxtaposed with talk of "red lines" around the same time, one can't help but think that Benghazi affected policy in a way that caused Syria to spiral further out of control.
4. Then there is the matter of the emails. Regardless of what one can assume about why a sitting Secretary of State would elect to go off established USG systems, the fact that classified material was transmitted and stored from an unsecure device is a violation of some very serious laws, not to mention the potential compromise of national security through exposing means and sources. This would have never come to light without the work of the Select Committee.

Congress members should stick with the facts of the case. They are plenty telling without stating the obvious that they damage the prospects of Mrs Clinton being elected.

Response by SSG (ret) William Martin made Oct 15 at 2015 1:03 PM

2015-10-15T13:03:19-04:00

Hillary Clinton gets special treatment. She is immune from obeying the simplest rules. However they do it I don't care, get away from being POTUS.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 15 at 2015 1:18 PM

2015-10-15T13:18:09-04:00

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/oct/7/trey-gowdy-kevin-mccarthy-screwed-benghazi-comment/?page=all

I hear a slap heard round the world. Hillary and most of the liberals are liars.

Trey Gowdy: Kevin McCarthy ‘screwed up’ with Benghazi comments; ‘Kevin, you’re wrong’

The chairman of the House Select Committee on Benghazi said Wednesday that Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy was “wrong” on recent comments regarding the committee and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s sagging poll numbers and that Mr. McCarthy “screwed up.”

Response by SSgt Alex Robinson made Oct 15 at 2015 1:24 PM

2015-10-15T13:24:12-04:00

And I'm sure the democrats never went after Ronald Reagan or either of the Bushs with politics in mind. Bear in mind Hilary Clinton was fired from the Watergate committee for lying!

Response by CPT Elizabeth Foster made Oct 15 at 2015 1:47 PM

2015-10-15T13:47:14-04:00

The article was carefully worded to make it sound as though the investigation into Hillary Clinton was unfounded. Am I incorrect to think that Ms. Clinton did play a major role and bears much responsibility in the fiasco? If she does, indeed, then "going after Clinton" should be a priority for Republicans and the rest of the citizens in order to prevent the election or promotion of such an individual to any government post, especially to President Of The United States.

Response by Maj Kevin "Mac" McLaughlin made Oct 15 at 2015 1:58 PM

2015-10-15T13:58:03-04:00

Regardless of the hidden intent or agenda, is there something they should be investigating? Should we turn off an investigation because the party leading it would like to see this hurt a political candidate's run for the highest office of the land?

The investigation has already led to the confirmed mishandling of classified information and a personal server used primarily for most official business. This is against the law. So should we not punish someone for breaking the law (and several government regulations), especially when they plan to run for the highest office in the land?

Something bad happened that night in Benghazi and the American people still do not know why. Republican or Democrat, I want to know how and why the direct representative of the President in Libya was killed and why he was not protected after he requested more protection from the State Dept.

The State Dept needs a serious attitude adjustment. Like several other federal agencies lately, they are speaking more in support of the President from a political ideology standpoint than from a non-partisan position.

You point out through your article that all these people on the RNC side claim this is politically motivated. And maybe this is true from the standpoint of the Congressional investigation. But now we have the DoD, State Dept, and FBI all investigating several aspects of this issue. Are they all in league with the RNC? You might want to read up more on the other side of the story about Maj Podliska before you place too much clout in him.

Per a statement reported on Rep Gowdy: "He also said Podliska has never mentioned Clinton — from when he was counseled about his “deficient performance” to when he was fired and through the entire legal mediation process."

Sounds to me like the Major was given a feedback to stop his activity, did not do so, and was in turn dismissed. After the dismissal was finalized, only then did he begin with allegations about being force to concentrate on Clinton.

Finally, as someone who works in Cyber and understands very well the rules and laws on having a personal server for government business, how classified information is managed, and what is briefed and expected of senior leadership for any government organization, Clinton and those she conducted official business with on these servers should all be investigated. From the information we have already, Clinton broke the law and at a minimum should be barred from ever serving in a government position again.

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Oct 15 at 2015 2:07 PM

2015-10-15T14:07:58-04:00

In other words, would a Republican dominated Congress investigate a Republican candidate under similar circumstances? Is that the question? Does it matter that there's more than enough "smoke" to suspect a "fire"? So many questions but ultimately, what does it matter? The dead are buried. The faithful will continue to believe as they believe. Hillary Clinton will be proven to be at least just another self-serving, self-aggrandizing, self-absorbed politician. Will worse be proven? Will she be elected President? Worse have been elected to office. Candidates have won elections while behind bars. Wouldn't it be fascinating if Hillary were condemned for a crime that landed her behind bars and she won the election? What would that say about her? More importantly, what would that say about us?

Response by Maj Kevin "Mac" McLaughlin made Oct 15 at 2015 2:57 PM

2015-10-15T14:57:04-04:00

I'm going to add another comment here for perspective on Sec Clinton's email server transgressions...

If any of you as a Military Commander had done the same thing with a personal server, which ended up proving to be highly vulnerable to our enemies, and contained unauthorized FOUO and classified data, you'd be facing dismissal as a Commander/Officer and jail time. The motivations of the GOP to point this issue out is irrelevant.

Response by COL Jon Thompson made Oct 15 at 2015 3:01 PM

2015-10-15T15:01:39-04:00

I have no doubt that very little is done in Washington without a political purpose behind it. However, she was Secretary of State when an ambassador and three other Americans were killed. In the Army, we open a 15-6 when just about anything happens. This was a significant event that warranted an investigation. Because of this investigation, we have learned about possible violations of national security with her email server and email discussions with others outside of the Administration so that now the FBI is involved. You can look at Watergate through the same eyes. It was a minor break-in (no one died) and tapping of phones that in the end did not have any impact on the election. Were the Democratically controlled houses of Congress politically motivated to go after President Nixon? Of course. Did that make the investigation wrong? I doubt it. If nothing comes out of this, no harm will be done to Hillary, in fact she can run on that for her campaign. Yet, there is enough going on that it definitely warrants an investigation.

Response by CW3 Jim Norris made Oct 15 at 2015 3:11 PM

2015-10-15T15:11:44-04:00

The Clinton's as a pair are the political equivalent of Bonnie and Clyde. He demeans the office of the President in a horrible way by sexual misconduct. Then perjures himself repeatedly and floats free. She makes massive profits in futures trading that could only occur through fraud and insider trading. Then as Sec. of State establishes a non-governmental e-mail system thru which hundreds, if not thousands of official documents flow and people act as if ignorance is an acceptable excuse for breaching security policies, federal law and State Department policies. We know that satellite imagery of North Korean missile sites where sent. We know that several hacks where done by known enemies of this nation - we do not know how many records where taken, but a simple guess would be all or most. She and Bill make Richard Nixon look like the posture child for open honest governance - but, she and he are democrats so float way and above the law and common sense integrity that a junior NCO would be held accountable for and removed from the military........amazing, simply amazing....wonder how Petraus feels?

Response by SSG Gerhard S. made Oct 15 at 2015 9:03 PM

2015-10-15T21:03:45-04:00

As in Watergate, cover ups, and conspiracies are difficult and time consuming, to investigate. Particularly when the focus of the investigation belongs to the party in power, which does what it can to thwart the investigation.

Response by SSgt Randall Farr made Oct 22 at 2015 4:33 PM

2015-10-22T16:33:39-04:00

Personally...I believe these "admissions: are politically "planted" (and paid for) by Clinton loyalists within the "Republican" party -- those who want to maintain the status quo of political foolishness and deceit!

Response by CPT Ahmed Faried made Nov 5 at 2015 2:01 PM

2015-11-05T14:01:48-05:00

@CPT Brian Willey, Drive by downvote appreciated.