Benghazi cover-up is starting to unravel

Thomas Lifson
There is a lot more to come on the Benghazi cover-up, and it could well lead to criminal charges for withholding subpoenaed evidence. Trey Gowdy, an experienced prosecutor who will head the House Select Committee, has gone on the record (on Greta van Susteren’s FNC program of the same name) as having more evidence of a cover-up. Bizpacreview:

U.S. Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., appeared on Fox News Friday and told host Greta Van Susteren that he has proof the Obama administration is deliberately withholding documents related to its response to the attack in Benghazi.

In the wake of Friday’s announcement that the House will vote to establish a select committee to investigate that attack, Gowdy was commenting on Secretary of State John Kerry also being subpoenaed to answer for the State Department failing to produce documents related to the incident.

“Is it bureaucracy, or are they hiding it?” Susteren asked.

 “Well, I have evidence that not only are they hiding it, there is an intent to hide it,” Gowdy replied. “I can’t disclose that evidence yet, but I have evidence that there was a systematic, intentional decision to withhold certain documents from Congress.” [emphasis added]

“And we’re just sick of it,” he added. “So we’re gonna have him come explain why we’re getting documents 20 months late.”

In the New York Post, Kenneth Timmerman has more on what is being withheld:

The person who should worry most is former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

For example, until now we have seen zero documentation to explain how Clinton out of the blue concocted the statement she issued on the evening of the attacks, which first raised the notion that the attacks came “as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet.”

In all the material released by the administration to date, there are no notes, e-mails or drafts of Clinton’s Sept. 11, 2012 statement similar to the back-and forth e-mail chain released last year showing how the CIA talking points evolved during three days of inter-agency discussion.

And yet surely such documents exist. We know from the public record that Clinton was getting real-time information on the attacks. She understood — because her own officials were telling her — that there were no protests in Benghazi and that the attacks on the Special Mission Compound and on the Annex were a well-planned terrorist assault.

And yet, after consulting by phone with President Obama at 10 that night, Hillary decided to blame it all on an Internet video.

Similarly, the administration has released no notes, e-mails or other communications that describe the substance of that phone call, so we still don’t know who first floated the idea of blaming it all on a non-existent video. Nor has the White House revealed, despite repeated requests, what the president was doing that night as he prepared for his fund-raiser the next day in Las Vegas. Dialing for dollars, perhaps?

In testimony before the House Oversight and Government Reform committee on Thursday, Brig. Gen. Robert Lovell, the chief of intelligence (J-2) for US Africa Command at the time of the attacks, revealed that his “analysts worked through chat” all night long. None of those documents have been turned over to congressional committees.

The depth and breadth of the cover-up in an administration that vowed to be “the most transparent ever” demonstrates deep worry over what those documents will reveal.

Rep. Gowdy and the staff he chooses will have the ability to call witnesses for sworn depositions prior to hearings. Those sessions can last hours or even days, and will carry criminal penalties for perjury.

Will a John Dean figure emerge to spill the beans and save his or her sorry butt? Time will tell.

There is a lot more to come on the Benghazi cover-up, and it could well lead to criminal charges for withholding subpoenaed evidence. Trey Gowdy, an experienced prosecutor who will head the House Select Committee, has gone on the record (on Greta van Susteren’s FNC program of the same name) as having more evidence of a cover-up. Bizpacreview:

U.S. Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., appeared on Fox News Friday and told host Greta Van Susteren that he has proof the Obama administration is deliberately withholding documents related to its response to the attack in Benghazi.

In the wake of Friday’s announcement that the House will vote to establish a select committee to investigate that attack, Gowdy was commenting on Secretary of State John Kerry also being subpoenaed to answer for the State Department failing to produce documents related to the incident.

“Is it bureaucracy, or are they hiding it?” Susteren asked.

 “Well, I have evidence that not only are they hiding it, there is an intent to hide it,” Gowdy replied. “I can’t disclose that evidence yet, but I have evidence that there was a systematic, intentional decision to withhold certain documents from Congress.” [emphasis added]

“And we’re just sick of it,” he added. “So we’re gonna have him come explain why we’re getting documents 20 months late.”

In the New York Post, Kenneth Timmerman has more on what is being withheld:

The person who should worry most is former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

For example, until now we have seen zero documentation to explain how Clinton out of the blue concocted the statement she issued on the evening of the attacks, which first raised the notion that the attacks came “as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet.”

In all the material released by the administration to date, there are no notes, e-mails or drafts of Clinton’s Sept. 11, 2012 statement similar to the back-and forth e-mail chain released last year showing how the CIA talking points evolved during three days of inter-agency discussion.

And yet surely such documents exist. We know from the public record that Clinton was getting real-time information on the attacks. She understood — because her own officials were telling her — that there were no protests in Benghazi and that the attacks on the Special Mission Compound and on the Annex were a well-planned terrorist assault.

And yet, after consulting by phone with President Obama at 10 that night, Hillary decided to blame it all on an Internet video.

Similarly, the administration has released no notes, e-mails or other communications that describe the substance of that phone call, so we still don’t know who first floated the idea of blaming it all on a non-existent video. Nor has the White House revealed, despite repeated requests, what the president was doing that night as he prepared for his fund-raiser the next day in Las Vegas. Dialing for dollars, perhaps?

In testimony before the House Oversight and Government Reform committee on Thursday, Brig. Gen. Robert Lovell, the chief of intelligence (J-2) for US Africa Command at the time of the attacks, revealed that his “analysts worked through chat” all night long. None of those documents have been turned over to congressional committees.

The depth and breadth of the cover-up in an administration that vowed to be “the most transparent ever” demonstrates deep worry over what those documents will reveal.

Rep. Gowdy and the staff he chooses will have the ability to call witnesses for sworn depositions prior to hearings. Those sessions can last hours or even days, and will carry criminal penalties for perjury.

Will a John Dean figure emerge to spill the beans and save his or her sorry butt? Time will tell.