Do you actually believe this dimwit?
First of all, he claims to have secret evidence to support his claims. He can't produced this evidence, of course.
“Well, I have evidence that not only are they hiding it, there is an intent to hide it,” he claimed. “I can’t disclose that evidence yet, but I have evidence that there was a systematic, intentional decision to withhold certain documents from Congress.”
Well, if you "can't" produce it, you are a liar, Mr. Gowdy.
Then he goes on to ask questions that have already been answered in the four State Department and Congressional investigations already conducted.
"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."
Well, if he had bothered to read any of the reports he would know that the question has already been answered . . . by Hillary herself. We were in Benghazi as part of an effort to stabilize the Libyan government, and that while she was aware of the security issues and risks, the U.S. operates in many dangerous places around the world and security professionals did not recommend pulling out of Benghazi. Transcript
Gowdy goes on to ask why military assets were not sent. However, that speculation was debunked by Republicans, the military, and the Senate Intelligence Committee report, which found no military assets were in place to respond in time. The State Department investigation noted that Ambassador Stevens twice rejected offers for military protection a month earlier.
Gowdy asked why the CIA edited out references to terrorism in the much-ballyhooed talking points that Susan Rice delivered after the attack. Well, the former CIA deputy director, Michael Morell, previously testified that the change was recommended by CIA operations officers and was made before a senior analyst sent the talking points to the office of congressional affairs. He noted that . . .
"one of the things that we've learned on this process is that the words we use internal to the CIA aren't always the words that people outside of the CIA understands. So, to us, the word extremist was a synonym for the word terrorist. Not only for the analyst, but also our operators. In editing the talking points, I never changed 'terrorist' to 'extremist' and I never changed 'attack' to 'demonstration".
So why is the GOP overreaching again, after the spectacular failures of the Whitewater witch hunt and the Monica Lewinski special prosecution? Voters were not fooled.
This is a short-term political play by Republicans that, they hope, could also have some long-term implications for Hillary as a presidential candidate in 2016. Hillary scares the shit out of them, especially if The Slick One decides to run as VP. In presidential years, the candidates are about the business of persuading independent voters to give them a shot. But in midterm elections, it's about the partisans. Of the 40% of the electorate that generally shows up, almost no one is up for grabs. Candidates just need to get their party's loyalists to turn out.
Huge waste of taxpayer money for political purposes.
