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 »
STAFF PICKS
These (Supposed) Iowa and NH Escorts Tell All
30 minutes ago
NATIONAL JOURNAL AFTER DARK

Before we get to the specifics of this exposé about escorts working the Iowa and New Hampshire primary crowds, let’s get three things out of the way: 1.) It’s from Cosmopolitan; 2.) most of the women quoted use fake (if colorful) names; and 3.) again, it’s from Cosmopolitan. That said, here’s what we learned:

  • Business was booming: one escort who says she typically gets two inquiries a weekend got 15 requests in the pre-primary weekend.
  • Their primary season clientele is a bit older than normal—”40s through mid-60s, compared with mostly twentysomething regulars” and “they’ve clearly done this before.”
  • They seemed more nervous than other clients, because “the stakes are higher when you’re working for a possible future president” but “all practiced impeccable manners.”
  • One escort “typically enjoy[s] the company of Democrats more, just because I feel like our views line up a lot more.”
Source:
STATE VS. FEDERAL
Restoring Some Sanity to Encryption
30 minutes ago
WHY WE CARE

No matter where you stand on mandating companies to include a backdoor in encryption technologies, it doesn’t make sense to allow that decision to be made on a state level. “The problem with state-level legislation of this nature is that it manages to be both wildly impractical and entirely unenforceable,” writes Brian Barrett at Wired. There is a solution to this problem. “California Congressman Ted Lieu has introduced the ‘Ensuring National Constitutional Rights for Your Private Telecommunications Act of 2016,’ which we’ll call ENCRYPT. It’s a short, straightforward bill with a simple aim: to preempt states from attempting to implement their own anti-encryption policies at a state level.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
What the Current Crop of Candidates Could Learn from JFK
30 minutes ago
WHY WE CARE

Much has been made of David Brooks’s recent New York Times column, in which confesses to missing already the civility and humanity of Barack Obama, compared to who might take his place. In NewYorker.com, Jeffrey Frank reminds us how critical such attributes are to foreign policy. “It’s hard to imagine Kennedy so casually referring to the leader of Russia as a gangster or a thug. For that matter, it’s hard to imagine any president comparing the Russian leader to Hitler [as] Hillary Clinton did at a private fund-raiser. … Kennedy, who always worried that miscalculation could lead to war, paid close attention to the language of diplomacy.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Hillary Is Running Against the Bill of 1992
30 minutes ago
WHY WE CARE

The New Covenant. The Third Way. The Democratic Leadership Council style. Call it what you will, but whatever centrist triangulation Bill Clinton embraced in 1992, Hillary Clinton wants no part of it in 2016. Writing for Bloomberg, Sasha Issenberg and Margaret Talev explore how Hillary’s campaign has “diverged pointedly” from what made Bill so successful: “For Hillary to survive, Clintonism had to die.” Bill’s positions in 1992—from capital punishment to free trade—“represented a carefully calibrated diversion from the liberal orthodoxy of the previous decade.” But in New Hampshire, Hillary “worked to juggle nostalgia for past Clinton primary campaigns in the state with the fact that the Bill of 1992 or the Hillary of 2008 would likely be a marginal figure within today’s Democratic politics.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Trevor Noah Needs to Find His Voice. And Fast.
1 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

At first, “it was pleasant” to see Trevor Noah “smiling away and deeply dimpling in the Stewart seat, the seat that had lately grown gray hairs,” writes The Atlantic‘s James Parker in assessing the new host of the once-indispensable Daily Show. But where Jon Stewart was a heavyweight, Noah is “a very able lightweight, [who] needs time too. But he won’t get any. As a culture, we’re not about to nurture this talent, to give it room to grow. Our patience was exhausted long ago, by some other guy. We’re going to pass judgment and move on. There’s a reason Simon Cowell is so rich. Impress us today or get thee hence. So it comes to this: It’s now or never, Trevor.”

Source:
×