Why Darrell Issa Might Want to Cancel His Latest Benghazi Hearing

Newly released transcripts suggest he won’t find what he’s looking for.

Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., speaks to reporters following his meeting with Attorney General Eric Holder on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, June 19, 2012. Holder wants a House panel to drop plans to try to hold him in contempt of Congress, and the panel's chairman wants more Justice Department documents regarding Operation Fast and Furious, a flawed gun-smuggling probe in Arizona. Holder and Rep. Darrell Issa, a California Republican, met in an effort to resolve their dispute over the investigation of Fast and Furious by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee that Issa chairs. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)  
National Journal
Alex Seitz-Wald
See more stories about...
Alex Seitz-Wald
Sept. 18, 2013, 12:06 p.m.

Re­pub­lic­ans are hold­ing no less than three hear­ings this week on the 2012 Benghazi at­tack, “to ex­am­ine the Ad­min­is­tra­tion’s in­ad­equate re­sponse,” as House Ma­jor­ity Lead­er Eric Can­tor said Monday (the same day, by the way, that Speak­er John Boehner slammed the pres­id­ent for en­ga­ging in par­tis­an­ship on the day of the Navy Yard shoot­ing).

They’re the latest in a long series of hear­ings and in­ter­views in­vest­ig­at­ing the at­tack, which Demo­crats have dis­missed as noth­ing more than a fish­ing ex­ped­i­tion in­to a “phony” scan­dal, but Thursday’s hear­ing will be spe­cial. Law­makers will fi­nally get to hear from Am­bas­sad­or Thomas Pick­er­ing and Adm. Mike Mul­len, the two re­tired of­fi­cials who led the gov­ern­ment’s in­tern­al re­port on the mat­ter. Get­ting Mul­len and Pick­er­ing in­to the hot seat has taken five months of ne­go­ti­ation and even a sub­poena, so they must be hid­ing something good, right?

Maybe not. We have a pretty clear idea of what the two former of­fi­cials might say, since they sat with con­gres­sion­al in­vest­ig­at­ors for be­hind-closed-doors in­ter­views in June. We fi­nally got to see the 355 pages of tran­scribed testi­mony this week (read Mul­len‘s and Pick­er­ing‘s here), but they’ve so far gone largely un­noticed. A re­view sug­gests that House Over­sight and Gov­ern­ment Re­form Com­mit­tee Chair­man Dar­rell Issa and oth­er Re­pub­lic­ans will find no smoking guns in Thursday’s hear­ing.

For in­stance, there’s the ques­tion of wheth­er the ad­min­is­tra­tion did everything it pos­sibly could have to re­spond to the at­tack once it star­ted. Last month, Issa said in a ra­dio in­ter­view that the ad­min­is­tra­tion hasn’t ex­plained why it didn’t send air­craft, and sug­ges­ted that the pres­id­ent and then-Sec­ret­ary of State Hil­lary Rod­ham Clin­ton did not “ac­tu­ally care about people in harm’s way as they’re be­ing at­tacked by al Qaeda ele­ments.”

Mul­len, however, told con­gres­sion­al in­vest­ig­at­ors two months earli­er there was simply noth­ing more the U.S. mil­it­ary could have done. “[We] looked at every single U.S. mil­it­ary as­set that was there, and what it pos­sibly could have done, wheth­er it could have moved or not. And it was in that in­ter­ac­tion that I con­cluded, after a de­tailed un­der­stand­ing of what had happened that night, that from out­side Libya, that we’d done everything pos­sible that we could,” the former chair­man of the Joint Chiefs of Staff ex­plained.

His in­ter­locutor fol­lowed up: “So your con­clu­sion based on your ex­per­i­ence, 40 years of ex­per­i­ence, is that the mil­it­ary and the U.S. Gov­ern­ment did everything that they could to re­spond to the at­tacks?” Mul­len re­spon­ded, simply: “Yes.”

Why didn’t the U.S. send an “F-16 at low alti­tude [to] fly over those people who were at­tack­ing our con­su­late,” as Sen. John Mc­Cain, R-Ar­iz., asked in May on ABC’s This Week? Be­cause, Mul­len told in­vest­ig­at­ors, the F-16 would need be re­fueled at least twice, and that was im­possible at the time. The “phys­ics of it, the real­ity of it, it just wasn’t go­ing to hap­pen for 12 to 20 hours,” he said.

He ad­ded that just be­cause forces wer­en’t able to get there in time doesn’t mean they wer­en’t try­ing. “It does not seem to be, at least from a pub­lic stand­point, widely un­der­stood, we moved a lot of forces that night,” he told in­vest­ig­at­ors.

What about the no­tion that Mul­len and Pick­er­ing’s re­view wasn’t in­de­pend­ent, as many Re­pub­lic­ans have claimed? Did he have full ac­cess? Did he look at every­one? “We had the au­thor­ity to, with­in the scope of the task­ing, to do just about any­thing that we thought was im­port­ant,” he said. “We in­ter­viewed every­one that we thought was rel­ev­ant “¦ the most im­port­ant de­script­ive char­ac­ter­ist­ic of it is that it would be in­de­pend­ent.”

What about Clin­ton? “In the end there was no of­fi­cial, in­clud­ing the sec­ret­ary of state, whose in­volve­ment wasn’t re­viewed,” he replied. “Every­body was on the table.”

“We found no evid­ence what­so­ever that [Clin­ton] was in­volved in se­cur­ity de­cisions” about the com­pound in Benghazi, Mul­len told in­vest­ig­at­ors. “She did not have such a role,” Pick­er­ing ad­ded. A re­port is­sued by Issa’s of­fice this week men­tions Clin­ton’s name 33 times.

And those are just some of the more ser­i­ous linger­ing ques­tions about the at­tack, not the more fanci­ful ones like the no­tion that of­fi­cials told spe­cial op­er­at­ors in coun­try to “stand down.” (On that one, here’s the Re­pub­lic­an House Armed Ser­vices Com­mit­tee Chair­man Buck McK­eon: “Con­trary to news re­ports, [Lieu­ten­ant Col­on­el S.E.] Gib­son was not ordered to ‘stand down’ by high­er com­mand au­thor­it­ies … he would not have been able to get to Benghazi in time to make a dif­fer­ence.”)

Of course, it’s pos­sible that Mul­len and Pick­er­ing are ly­ing, but that gets us in­to the realm of con­spir­acy the­ory, which is un­for­tu­nately where so much of the con­ver­sa­tion around Benghazi has ended up. As The Wash­ing­ton Post‘s Dana Mil­bank wrote a few days ago, in­stead of fo­cus­ing on im­port­ant ques­tions, “the Benghazi scan­dal-seekers are de­term­ined to link Hil­lary Clin­ton” to the at­tack, and are get­ting “dis­trac­ted by wild the­or­ies.”

Giv­en that fact, no amount of testi­mony or hear­ings will likely lead to a real stand down or­der is­sued on Benghazi.

What We're Following See More »
TAKING A LONG VIEW TO SOUTHERN STATES
In Dropout Speech, Santorum Endorses Rubio
3 days ago
THE DETAILS

As expected after earlier reports on Wednesday, Rick Santorum ended his presidential bid. But less expected: he threw his support to Marco Rubio. After noting he spoke with Rubio the day before for an hour, he said, “Someone who has a real understanding of the threat of ISIS, real understanding of the threat of fundamentalist Islam, and has experience, one of the things I wanted was someone who has experience in this area, and that’s why we decided to support Marco Rubio.” It doesn’t figure to help Rubio much in New Hampshire, but the Santorum nod could pay dividends down the road in southern states.

Source:
‘PITTING PEOPLE AGAINST EACH OTHER’
Rubio, Trump Question Obama’s Mosque Visit
3 days ago
WHY WE CARE

President Obama’s decision to visit a mosque in Baltimore today was never going to be completely uncontroversial. And Donald Trump and Marco Rubio proved it. “Maybe he feels comfortable there,” Trump told interviewer Greta van Susteren on Fox News. “There are a lot of places he can go, and he chose a mosque.” And in New Hampshire, Rubio said of Obama, “Always pitting people against each other. Always. Look at today – he gave a speech at a mosque. Oh, you know, basically implying that America is discriminating against Muslims.”

Source:
THE TIME IS NOW, TED
Cruz Must Max Out on Evangelical Support through Early March
3 days ago
WHY WE CARE

For Ted Cruz, a strong showing in New Hampshire would be nice, but not necessary. That’s because evangelical voters only make up 21% of the Granite State’s population. “But from the February 20 South Carolina primary through March 15, there are nine states (South Carolina, Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Kentucky, Mississippi, and North Carolina) with an estimated white-Evangelical percentage of the GOP electorate over 60 percent, and another four (Texas, Kansas, Louisiana, and Missouri) that come in over 50 percent.” But after that, he better be in the catbird’s seat, because only four smaller states remain with evangelical voter majorities.

Source:
CHRISTIE, BUSH TRYING TO TAKE HIM DOWN
Rubio Now Winning the ‘Endorsement Primary’
3 days ago
WHY WE CARE

Since his strong third-place finish in Iowa, Marco Rubio has won endorsement by two sitting senators and two congressmen, putting him in the lead for the first time of FiveThirtyEight‘s Endorsement Tracker. “Some politicians had put early support behind Jeb Bush — he had led [their] list since August — but since January the only new endorsement he has received was from former presidential candidate Sen. Lindsey Graham.” Meanwhile, the New York Times reports that fueled by resentment, “members of the Bush and Christie campaigns have communicated about their mutual desire to halt … Rubio’s rise in the polls.”

Source:
7 REPUBLICANS ON STAGE
Carly Fiorina Will Not Be Allowed to Debate on Saturday
2 days ago
THE LATEST

ABC News has announced the criteria for Saturday’s Republican debate, and that means Carly Fiorina won’t be a part of it. The network is demanding candidates have “a top-three finish in Iowa, a top-six standing in an average of recent New Hampshire polls or a top-six placement in national polls in order for candidates to qualify.” And there will be no “happy hour” undercard debate this time. “So that means no Fiorina vs. Jim Gilmore showdown earlier in the evening for the most ardent of campaign 2016 junkies.

Source:
×