undisputed a significant number of your e-mails were to or from sidney blumenthal. he did not work for the state department. he didn't work for the u.s. government at all. he wanted to work for the state department. but the white house said no to him. do you recall who at the white house rejected blumenthal? >> no, i do not. >> he went to work where? >> i think he had a number of consulting contracts with different entities. >> do you recall any? >> i know he did some work for my husband. >> well, he worked for the clinton foundation. >> that's correct. >> he worked for media matters. >> i'm sure he did. >> he worked for correct the record. >> i'm sure he did. >> when you were asked about blumenthal, you said he was an
old friend who sent you unsolicited e-mails which you passed on in some instances because you wanted to hear from people outside what you called the bubble. we will ignore for a second whether or not blumenthal is outside the bubble, but i do want to ask you about a couple of those other comments. because what you left out was he was an old friend who knew absolutely nothing about libya, was critical of obama and others you worked with, loved to send you political and image advice, had business interests in libya which he not only aletteralette alerted you to and solicited your help for. and after you redacted out any identifier so nobody knew where the information was coming from. what does the word unsole lifted mean to you? >> it means that i did not ask him to send me the information he send me.
as i previously stated, some of it i found interesting. some of it i did not. some of it i foorpded. some of it i did not. i did not know anything about any business interest. i thought that just as i said previously, newspaper articles, journalists, had some interesting insights. so we, you know, we took them on board and evaluated them and some were helpful and owns were not. >> we're going to get to all the points you just made. i want to start with your public comment these e-mails were unsolicited. you wrote to him, another keeper, thanks, please keep them coming. greetings from kabul and thanks for keeping this stuff coming. any other info about it question mark. what are you hearing now question mark. got it. will follow up tomorrow. anything else to convey question
mark. now that one is interesting because that was the very e-mail where blumenthal was asking you to intervene on a business deal he was pursuing in libya. what did you mean by "what are you hearing now?" ? >> i have no idea, congressman. they started out unsolicited. as i said, some were of interest. i passed them on. some were not. so he continued to provide me information that was made available to him. >> i don't want to parse words. i don't want to be hyper technical. it's not a huge point but it is an important point. you didn't say they started off unsolicited. you said they were -- >> no, i did -- >> you said they were unsolicited. >> they were unsolicited but obviously i did respond to some of them and i'm sure that encouraged him. >> anything else to convey, what are you hearing now, i'm going to paris tomorrow night, will meet with tnc leaders so this
and additional info useful. still don't have blackberry coverage so i've had to resort to my new ipad. let me know if you've received this. we'll talk about the new ipad in a little bit. here's another one. this report is in response to your questions. it's an e-mail to him from you be. this report is in response to your questions. further information in the next day. if you're the one asking him for information, how does that square with the definition of unsolicited? >> i said it began that way, and i will add both stevens and yetz found some of the information interesting, far more than i could, because they knew some of the characters who were being mentioned. they were the one, the kind of persons with the expertise that i asked to evaluate to see whether there was any useful information. >> we're going to get to that in a second. before you give mr. blumenthal
too much credit, you agree he didn't write a single one of those cables or memos he sent you? >> i'm sorry, what? >> he didn't write a single one of those cables. >> i didn't know. >> would you be surprised to know not a single one was from him? >> i didn't know where he got the information -- >> did you ask? >> what? >> did you ask? you're sending me very detailed intelligence. what is your source? that seems to me a pretty good question. >> i did learn later he was talking to or sharing information from former american intelligence officials. >> by the name of? who wrote those cables? >> i don't recall. i don't know, mr. chairman. >> you had his information passed on to others. at least on one occasion you asked, can you print without any identifiers. why would you want his name removed? >> because i thought it would be more important to just look at the substance and to make a determination as to whether or not there was anything to it. >> don't people have a right to know the source of the
information so they can determine credibility? >> he wasn't, as you just said, the source of the information -- >> but you didn't know that, madam secretary, that's what you just said. >> no, no, mr. chairman, i said -- >> no, ma'am -- >> i said that he didn't have the sorurces to provide that information. i knew he was getting it from somewhere else -- >> did you ask where? >> he knew a lot of journalists. it could have been a variety of people. >> if you're going to determine credibility, don't you want to know the source? >> well, it wasn't credibility so much as trying to follow the threads that were mentioned about individuals. as i already stated, some tch was useful and some of it was not. >> well, did the president know that mr. blumenthal wallace advising you? >> he wasn't advising me and, you know, mr. chairman -- >> -- your most prolific e-mailer we have found on the subjects of libya and benghazi? >> that's because i didn't do most of my work on e-mail -- >> i'm not challenging that, mr. secretary.
all i'm telling you is the documents show he was your most prolific e-mailer on libya and benghazi. my question to you is did the president, the same white house that said you can't handle him, can't hire him, did he know that he was advising you? >> he was not advising me, and i have no reason to have ever mentioned that or know that the president knew that. >> i want to draw your attention to an e-mail. it will be exhibit 67. this is informative. shall we pass on, in parathen calls, unidentified to the white house. if you're going to pass something on to the white house, why would you take off the identifiers? >> because it was important to evaluate the information. from a lot of intelligence i have certainly reviewed over the years, you often don't have the
source of the intelligence. you look at the intelligence and you try to determine whether or not it is credible. whether it can be followed up on. >> i'm going to accept the fact you and i come from different backgrounds. i can tell you an unsourced comment could ever be uttered in any courtroom -- >> we're not talking about courtrooms, mr. chairman. we're talking about intelligence -- >> no, we're talking about credibility and the abuilt ilit assess who the source is. whether or not that source has ever been to libya. knows anything about libya. or has business interest in libya. all of which would be important if you were going to determine the credibility, which i think is why you probably took his information off of what you sent to the white house, but here's another possible explanation. that may give us a sense of why maybe the white house didn't want you to hire him in the first place. in one e-mail, he wrote this about the president, secretary of defense, i infer gates problem as losing an internal debate.
tyler. that's who actually authored the cables you got from blumenthal. tyler knows him well and says he's a mean vicious little. i'm not going to say the word but he did. this is an e-mail from blumenthal to you about the president, secretary of defense. and here's another blumenthal e-mail to you about president's national security adviser. frankly tom's babbling rhetoric about narratives on the phone briefing by reporters on march 10th has inspired derision among serious foreign policy analysts both here and abroad. here's another one from what you say is your old friend sidney blumenthal. a quote from him. i would say obama, and by the way, he left the president part out, i would say obama appears to be intent on seizing defeat from the jaws of victory. he and his political cronies in the white house and chicago are to say the least unenthusiastic
about regime change in lynn libya. obama's lukewarm and self-contracting statements have produced at least for the moment operational paralysis. i think that may give us a better understanding of why the white house may have told you you cannot hire him. bloomen all this could not get hired by our government. didn't pass any background check at all. had no role with our government. had never been to libya. had no expertise in libya. was critical of the president and others that you worked with. shared polling data with you on the intervention in libya. gave you political advice on how to take credit for libya. all the while working for the clinton foundation and some pseudo news entities. madam secretary, he had unfettered access to you. he used that access at least on one occasion to ask you to
intervene on behalf of a business venture. do you recall that? >> you know, mr. chairman, if you don't have any friends who say unkind things privately, i congratulate you. but from my perspective, i don't -- >> i'd like to think i'd correct them. >> -- i don't know what this line of questioning does to help us get to the bottom of the deaths of four americans -- >> i'd be happy to tell -- >> -- to understand better -- >> i'd be happy to tell you, madam secretary -- >> -- i want to reiterate what i said to sanchez. these were originally unsolicited. you just said perhaps the main if not the exclusive author was a former intelligence agent for our country who rose to the highest levels of the cia and who was given credit for being one of the very few who pointed out that the intelligence used by the bush administration to go to war in iraq was wrong. so i think that, you know, the
sharing of information from an old friend that i did not take at face value, that i sent on to those who were experts, is something that, you know, makes sense, but it was certainly not in anyway the primary source of or the predominant understanding that we had of what was going on in libya and what we needed to be doing. >> madam secretary, i'm out of time. we'll pick this back up the next round. i'll go ahead and let you know ahead of time why it's relevant. it's relevant because our ambassador was asked to read and respond to sidney blumenthal's drivel. it was sent to him to read and react to. in some instances, on the very same day he was asking for security. so i think it is imminently fair to ask why sidney blumenthal had unfettered access to you, madam secretary, with whatever he talked about, and there's not a
single solitary e-mail to or from you to or from ambassador stevens. i think that is fair. and we'll take that -- >> gentleman yield? >> sure. >> thank you. mr. chairman, you've made several inaccurate statements over the past months as you've tried to defend against multiple republican admissions that the select committee has been wasting millions of tax dollars to damage secretary clinton's bid for president. on sunday, you made another inaccurate statement during your appearance on "face the nation" and it's being taken up here. here's who you said, i quote. there are other folks who may have equities in her e-mails. and there may be other entities who are evaluating her e-mails. but my interest, my interest in them is solely making sure that i get everything i'm entitled
to. so i can do my job. the rest of it, classification, clinton foundation, you name it, i have zero interest in it. which is why you haven't seen me send a subpoena related to it or interview a single person other than brian faviano because i need to know the record is complete. i'm going back to truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. >> i'm waiting -- >> let me finish -- >> i've been very patient -- >> just wait -- >> i'm waiting on the inaccurate statement. >> i'm getting there -- >> well, we have to take a break. >> well, it's not going to take long. you took up four minutes -- >> i've let everybody go over, including you. >> thank you very much. >> you issued a subpoena to blumenthal on may 19, 2015, compelling him to appear for a deposition on june 16th, 2015. you issued that subpoena unilaterally without giving the select committee members the opportunity to debate or vote on it. you sent two armed marshals to
serve the subpoena on mr. blumenthal's wife at their home without ever sent him a request to participate voluntarily, which he would have done. then mr. chairman you personally attended mr. blumenthal's deposition. you personally asked him about the clinton foundation. and you personally directed your staff to ask questions about clinton, the clinton foundation, which they did more than 50 times. now, these facts directly contradict the statements you made on national television -- >> no, sir, with all due respect, they do not. we just heard e-mail after e-mail after e-mail about libya and benghazi that sidney blumenthal sent to the secretary of state. i don't care if he sent it by mors code, carrier pigeon, smoke signals. the fact he happened to send it by e-mail is irrelevant. what is relevant is he was sending information to the secretary of state. that is what's relevant. with respect to the subpoena, if he'd bothered to answer the
telephone calls of our committee, he wouldn't have needed a subpoena. >> will the gentleman yield? >> i'd be happy to but you need to make sure the entire record is correct, mr. cummings. >> that's exactly what i want to do. >> go ahead. >> let me tell you. i move that we put into the record the entire transcript of sidney blumenthal. that way the world can see it. >> i second that motion. >> we didn't -- >> motion had been seconded. >> we're not going to take that up at a hearing -- >> -- and they have informed us we have a right to record a vote on that motion. >> well, let's go through that. >> -- the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. that's what we want to have. let the world see it. >> why is it you only want blumenthal's transcript released? >> i'd like all of them released. >> the survivors, even their names? you want that released? >> no, let me tell you something -- >> the only one you've asked for is blumenthal.
>> sheryl mills. >> that's not true. >> that's 2 out of 54. >> ask for a recorded vote on the blumenthal -- you said from the beginning we want the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. why don't we just put the entire transcript out there and let the world see it? what do you have to hide? >> his are the only e-mails you have released. in fairness to blumenthal and the american people in the interest of a complete record if you're going to release his e-mails, release his transcript where he had a chance to give the context of those e-mailings. >> you keep referring to blumenthal e-mails. i would hasten ton remind both of you the only reason we have blumenthal e-mails is because he e-mailled the secretary of state. they're not blumenthal's e-mails. and she wanted all of her e-mails released. she's been saying since march. i want the entire world to see my e-mails. well, blumenthal's e-mails are parent of that. here's what i'll do. i'll be happy to talk to the parliamentarian.
told me your motion actually would not be in order for a hearing. but at the latest, we'll take a vote and the first week we are back after this week, we'll have a business meeting. we can take up mr. blumenthal's transcript. we can take up whatever other transcripts. also the 20 some-odd outstanding deputy discovery requests. >> in the interest of not having -- >> that's your opinion -- >> well, if you disagree, then release the transcripts. >> what allegation? >> why conceal the transcripts? even if the motion were not in order. you have the power to release them. >> because i'm not going to release one transcript of someone who knows nothing about libya by his own admission. while people who risk their lives, you have no interest in their story getting out. you don't want the 18 ds agents. you don't want the cia agents.
the only transcripts you want released are miss mills and blumenthal's. we'll take all of this up in november -- >> the only person you were interested in during your entire questioning is blumenthal. if you're so interested in him, release the transcript. you selectively released the e-mails. they're the only witness you've done that for. you're asking why are we only asking for his transcript -- >> i'm going to ask the gentleman of california to please do a better job of characterizing. these are not blumenthal's e-mails. these are clinton he's e-mails. if you think you've heard about blumenthal so far, wait till the next round. with that, we're adjourned. >> all right. so there you have it. quite an exchange at the very end between the chairman of the select committee, trey gowdy, the ranking democrat, elijah cummings, and you saw schiff, the ranking member of the house intelligent committee from california, involved as well. right on your screen, david
kendall, the former secretary's personal attorney, who's there. you see sheryl mills who was the legal adviser to the secretary when she served over at the state department. you see some her other top aides there as well. quite a lively session the first three, almost 3 1/2 hours, and it's going to be several more hours before this day is done. you see the secretary there behind those women. she's getting ready to walk out. they're going to take a little lunch break and resume presumably i'm guessing in about an hour or so. but jake tapper at the very end we saw what was going on over there. it was quite intense between these democrats and republicans. >> it's interesting, it's almost as if the democrats on the house benghazi committee were trying to take the opposite advice that hillary clinton has been given. hillary clinton has been told rise above it, stay calm, don't get upset, don't let your feathers get ruffled. the democrats have spent every
time they've had an opportunity to ask questions to basically try to discredit and undermine their own committee and they basically been trying to bait the republicans, especially chairman gowdy, into himself erupting, into trying to get him to lose his cool. and while hillary clinton so far has avoided the pitfalls of when she testified that time a few years ago and said at this point what difference does it make, not a quite momegreat moment in testimony career. gowdy has allowed himself to be taken down this path of whether or not they should release these records and whether or not sydney blumenthal, hillary clinton's friend, should be the major issue. there have been some interesting points that have been made. we heard some large-scale policy critiques of the libya policy. led by hillary clinton. congresswoman susan brooks trying to make the point hillary
clinton was much more engaged in day-to-day safety in libya in 2011 then she was in 2012. congressman also making that point. when westmoreland was talking, he managed to get from her that chris stevens, this person, this late ambassador, who was killed tragically september 11th, 2012, she described as a good friend, he did not have her e-mail address. we've gone down this rabbit hole dealing with her friend blumenthal. i don't know if there are any schoolchildren watching this testimony out there, that it's going to give them a lot of confidence in our american legislative branch. >> significant for clinton is she does have these democrats on the select committee who are obviously coming to her defense at every opportunity and challenging the republicans, had she appeared only with republicans there, would have been a different game today, would have been a different round of testimony. she wouldn't have had that kind of protection. there's been some discussion among the democrats whether to
boycott this hearing, the continuing hearings. clearly, from her perspective, it's good those democrats are there. >> they're doing her work for her. they're the ones calling the committee partisan. they're the ones attacking the committee. attacking chairman gowdy. gowdy feeling very defensive. he's talked a number of times. trying to respond to members of the committee. he at one point said to i think it was congressman smith from washington state, gowdy saying -- he made a reference to all the things this committee found that your committee missed. trying to make the case his committee is serious and should not be considered partisan. i think ultimately hillary clinton benefits greatly from having democrats on the committee because they're doing everything they can to protect her and attack the very committee they sit upon. >> you're absolutely right. she's keeping her cool. she's being very confident responding to the questions.
it's probably doing some good for her in the process as well. dana bash is outside the hearing. dana, you got elijah cummings, the ranking democrat, with you. we're anxious to hear what he thinks of the first 3 1/2 hours. >> of course i will, thank you very much for walking over, mr. cummings. that was quite a bit of fireworks at the end there. >> yes, our point is, is that the chairman started off with the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. we know there have been all kinds of leaks and then with regard to mr. blumenthal, he's the only person whose e-mails have been released, and basically what we're saying is if you're going to ask questions about these things, just put out the whole transcript. the things these -- don't just put out the e-mails when you've had a eight or nine hours with mr. blumenthal asking him questions about these e-mails. just release the whole transcript.
>> what about the point if you want to release the transcript from blumenthal's interview, what about releasing all of the transcripts? >> i've said it over and over again. once -- >> you made it sound like democrats don't want to do it. >> that's not true. i've said it many times. i said it this weekend on one of the national sunday shows. release all of them. i have seen -- and take out the appropriate redactions, you know, for security reasons and, you know, whatever the cia, others, may have concerns about. but release them all. there's nothing to hide. i want the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. i do believe republicans don't want people to see the blumenthal transcript -- >> why is that? tell us what's in there -- >> we've already issued press releases about the types of questions that are asked. about the foundation. about -- that is the clinton
foundation. a lot of questions that have absolutely nothing to do with benghazi. all we want to do is put the whole truth out there. it's as simple as that. i want to go back to what you just asked me. i didn't get a chance -- was trying to get him to let me say this at the end. i have no problem with every single transcript of every interview made public as long as the appropriate redactions are made. i have no problem with that. i want that. because i think then the public will really see what's going on here. >> let me ask you a question about the big picture what mr. gowdy was saying. is that this is not from his perspective a prosecution where there's a conclusion already made, this is an investigation. you're the ranking democrat. you've been involved in this. do you buy that? >>, you know, i wish i -- i wish i could accept the fact that conclusionings were not already made before we even got started. they were made. and this has been a constant
drum beat to disrupt, destroy, the campaign of hillary clinton. it took me a long time to get there. it's a painful conclusion to come to. but i've been one -- i have a history over my 20 years of try to stand up for the integrity of not only the committees but of the congress. and that's why i say that i have no problem seeing all the information out there. because i think when you look at what i've seen from these interviews, there's very little that's new. i think it just basically cooperates what has already been put in eight or nine reports, investigations. so, you know, we'll see -- >> when did you come to that conclusion? you said it was painful. >> i can't tell you the exact date but it's been very, very -- every time i see things being
done which go against what i believe is appropriate bipartisan investigation should be, it's like a chipping away. it took me a while to get there, but i'm there. so now, what i'm doing, i'm doing what i said i was going to do from the very beginning. the question was asked from the very beginning of this committee, why are you on the committee? and i said -- i said this and i'll say it again. it is to defend the truth. whatever that is. whatever it is. i am not hear to defend clinton. i'm here to defend the truth. >> thank you, appreciate it. there you heard pretty passionate from cummings. certainly been in his fair share of extremely partisan hearings. why he was put in this situation. the whole discussion about releasing transcripts or not releasing transcripts obviously speaks to the whole question of whether there is or isn't partisan motivation here so
we'll see how that part ends. >> certainly underscores, dana, the tension that was clearly evidence during the first 3 1/2 hours and presumably, i'm guessing, will escalate during the next 3 1/2 hours as this hearing continues after this quick lunch break. gloria borger, curious, how do you think the secretary, the former secretary of state did? >> i think she did what she needed to do. i think she did a good job. i think her body language to me, we were talking about it at the table here, told it all, you know, at the beginning she kind of centered herself, ready for the incoming. and when the -- when the committee devolved into, you know, partisan wrangling between the chairman and the ranking member, she just kind of sat there like this. as if, is there anything else you can flip the channel to. she had this sort of bemused look almost. it was perfect. because she just sat back and
the wrangling is actually what workings for her. i would also have to say at the beginning of the hearing, congressman roskam asked a very legitimate question, which is i think this policy in libya was bad. you own the bad libya policy. he tried to kind make that point. she said it was the president's policy. we were just, you know, we were carrying it out. then you had a congresswoman, brooks, saying you were derelict in your duties. it seemed to me as if they didn't get together on their plan. and then in terms of spending a lot of time on blumenthal, those of us who covered politics for a while know him from bill clinton's white house, the whole monica lewinsky stuff. the american public doesn't really care about sidney blumenthal i don't think. to spend so much time talking about him seems to be me be a waste of their valuable
committee time where they should be talking about what happened in benghazi. and i don't think they really got to that much today. >> it was interesting, jeffrey toobin, you're a former prosecutor. gowdy, the chairman. he's a former prosecutor down in south carolina. he says he's not a prosecutor right now. he's very defensive on this issue. he says he's an investigator. he only wants to come up with the truth. if you listen closely, the way he was making his case, he sounded like a prosecutor. >> sure, he does. you know, michael kinsly, my mentor in journalism, you know, he had kinsly law about gaffes. which when you unintentionally tell the truth. mccarthy's statement that this whole committee is designed to bring down hillary clinton's poll numbers, that hangs over today's testimony enormously. i don't know that i heard anything from trey gowdy today that really refuteded what mccathy said. i think it's remarkable when you
think he had ten minutes, only ten minutes, to ask questions of the former secretary of state and he chose out of all the supples regarding the four people who died here to ask mr. e-mails from blumenthal, a former colleague of mine at the new yorker, former colleague of paul's in the white house. someone who is, with all due respect, not a very important person in the united states, that that is someone he chose to ask questions about is utterly baffling to me. >> we'll get more analysis on what has occurred during the first round of this important hearing today. much more of our special coverage right after this.
when i was sidelined with blood clots in my lung,h. it was serious. fortunately, my doctor had a game plan. treatment with xarelto®. hey guys! hey, finally, somebody i can look up to... ...besides arnie. xarelto® is proven to treat and help reduce the risk of dvt and pe blood clots. xarelto® is also proven to reduce the risk of stroke in people with afib, not caused by a heart valve problem. for people with afib currently well managed on warfarin, there's limited information on how xarelto® and warfarin compare in reducing the risk of stroke. you know, i tried warfarin, but the blood testing and dietary restrictions... don't get me started on that. i didn't have to.
we started on xarelto®. nice pass. safety first. like all blood thinners, don't stop taking xarelto® without talking to your doctor, as this may increase your risk of a blood clot or stroke. while taking, you may bruise more easily and it may take longer for bleeding to stop. xarelto® may increase your risk of bleeding if you take certain medicines. xarelto® can cause serious, and in rare cases, fatal bleeding. get help right away for unexpected bleeding, unusual bruising, or tingling. if you have had spinal anesthesia while on xarelto®, watch for back pain or any nerve or muscle related signs or symptoms. do not take xarelto® if you have an artificial heart valve or abnormal bleeding. tell your doctor before all planned medical or dental procedures. before starting xarelto®, tell your doctor about any kidney, liver, or bleeding problems. you know xarelto® is the #1 prescribed blood thinner in its class. that's a big win. it is for me. with xarelto® there is no regular blood monitoring and no known dietary restrictions. treatment with xarelto®... ...was the right move for us. ask your doctor about xarelto®. where our next arrival is... red carpet whoa! toenail fungus!?
fight it! with jublia. jublia is a prescription medicine used to treat toenail fungus. use jublia as instructed by your doctor. are you getting this?! most common side effects include ingrown toenail, application site redness, itching, swelling, burning or stinging, blisters, and pain. oh, epic moves, big j! fight it! getting ready for your close-up? ask your doctor if jublia is right for you. visit our website for savings on larger size.
>> congressman, it's very personally painful accusation. it has been rejected and disproven by nonpartisan dispassionate investigators. nevertheless, having it continued to be bandied around is deeply distressing to me. i would imagine i thought more about what happened then all of you put together. i've lost more sleep than all of you put together. i have been racking my brain about what more could have been done or should have been done. >> hillary clinton getting a bit emotional there responding to congressman schiff regarding the death, the murder, of chris steven, the u.s. ambassador in libya, in benghazi, and three other americans. we want to welcome back our viewers in the united states and around the world. i'm wolf blitzer reporting from washington. we're getting analysis on the first 3 1/2 hours of testimony.
hillary clinton provided to members of the select committee, seven republicans, five democrats, republican chairman gowdy. two of our cnn political commentators are with us. amanda carpenter, former communications director for ted cruz. paul begala, democratic strategist, very actively involved in a pro-hillary clinton super pac right now. amanda, anxious to get your reaction to what we heard during these first 3 1/2 hours. >> i think the hearing started off much stronger than it ended. you saw republicans attempting to paint libya so to speak as hillary's war. i thought it was going to be a really good discussion that hillary would be eager to have as well. they started talking about how everyone knew that the ambassador and other americans were in a dangerous and growing more dangerous situation as time went on. and maybe people weren't paying attention to those signals. those issues weren't pressed as
much. and then it went into this kind of tangent about sidney blumenth blumenthal's e-mails. d.c. insiders know who he is. what the republicans are trying to do with that is say listen this guy who really didn't know what he was talking about with libya had direct accession to the secretary of state. meanwhile, she wasn't paying attention to people asking for more security, who are career professionals within the state department. i think they should have gone further to talk about why that was a bad idea, how the policies have failed in libya. look what happened earlier this year, 21 christians murdered on the beaches there. so we should have a broader discussion about what the libya policy is, what the strategic objections were. i hope they get that in the second half of the hearing. >> some of the republicans, paul were making the charge, congressman pompeo, she was relying on blumenthal for information about libya, she wasn't relying on her bureau of intelligence and research, the cia, all the other bureau of
middle eastern affairs at the statement department. she rejected that assertion immediately. >> not only did she but a very well prepared representative, linda sanchez, democrat on the panel, had a clip from "meet the press" where the substitute average, andrea mitchell, said no, i cover the place, i know that's not. >> most of the e-mails she had, the committee received from her about libya were e-mails that blumenthal had center her unsolicited or solicited. >> right, because when she was doing libya policy with the experts on libya policy it was actually at the state department, not by e-mail. the worm hole of blumenthal is hilarious to me because there's no chance the republicans win that. they had a strategy here i think. which is paint hillary as either incompetent or corrupt. i don't think i'm not an unbiased observer.
i don't think they laid a glove on her. shep had a strategy. rise above it. don't let them get under your skin. she had a policy goal. defend american engagement around the world. even in dangerous places. welcome that debate about libya policy. the democrats had a strategy it paint the committee as partisan. they start with the wind at their back. 72% of americans agree with the house republican leader that this is a political leader. it's 92 today. it will be 102 probably by the time we wake up tomorrow morning. not so far a terrific job by the house republicans. >> our global affairs correspondent alise abbott has been listening carefully. you've been doing some fact checking. what are you finding? >> there are a lot of things about what happened at the time. there are a lot of half-truths from the republicans. talking about how hillary clinton handled things. but not necessarily true. for instance, just in the very beginning, there was talk about how hillary clinton
hand-selected the arb, this independent panel. when, in fact, the legislation that sets up an arb calls for the secretary of state to appoint these members. and that's the kind of, you know, hitting hillary clinton in those type of things. i mean, on the blumenthal thing, it was true that she received e-mails from bloomen all this. at the time, a lot of people at the state department, you'd talk to them and they'd say, you know, he's got his hand on some things but not on others. yes, she was passing it around, but i wouldn't necessarily say his advice was readily sketched and readily acted upon. sometimes it was a thing about being polite, saying is i'll pass it around, and other times he had something interesting. i think what the committee was trying to do as we've been saying is go back. they're trying to say that hillary clinton was the architect of the libya policy. you heard congressman roskam say this was your baby, you were the
one who was the architect. another fact checking thing here, it wasn't only necessarily hillary clinton. certainly, she was one of the top leaders of the policy. but she also had then ambassador to the u.n. susan rice and samantha power who's now the u.n. ambassador but was in the white house at the time, very strongly advocating for military action. so the republicans are trying to paint this as hillary clinton's policy. and they say she lost interest and ignored some of the warning signs. but clearly laying not only the decision to go into libya at her lap but for also creating the conditions on the ground that led to the ex-stock marktremism benghazi. >> what happened in libya is not what the obama administration hoped would happen. it turned out to be a real disaster. yes, gadhafi is gone, but you look what's there on the ground now, mt tethe terrorism, the
al qaeda-affiliated groups. certainly not what the then secretary of state had planned on seeing. what the president had planned on seeing. what the nato allies worked for when they got rid of gadhafi. stand by. we're going to take another quick break. a picture of the hearing room as we go to this break. take a look. you see the chairman of the committee gowdy, he's almost alone there, sitting at his chair, inside the longworth house office building. i assume he's preparing for this next round which is going to begin momentarily. quite exciting in the first round. we'll see what happens in round two when we come back. i don't want to live with the uncertainties of hep c. or wonder... ...whether i should seek treatment. i am ready. because today there's harvoni. a revolutionary treatment for the most common type of chronic hepatitis c. harvoni is proven to cure up to 99% of patients... ...who've had no prior treatment.
it's the one and only cure that's... ...one pill, once a day for 12 weeks. certain patients... ...can be cured with just 8 weeks of harvoni. with harvoni, there's no interferon and there are no complex regimens. tell your doctor if you have other liver or kidney problems, or other medical conditions. and about all the medicines you take including herbal supplements. harvoni should not be taken with any medicines containing amiodarone, rifampin, or st. john's wort. it also should not be taken with any other medicine that contains sovaldi. side effects may include tiredness and headache. i am ready to put hep c behind me. i am ready to be cured. are you ready? ask your hep c specialist if harvoni is right for you.
you know how many security requests there were in the first quarter of 2012? >> for every one or for benghazi? >> related to benghazi, do you know how many? >> no, i don't know. >> ma'am, just over 100-plus. second quarter, do you know how many there were? >> no, i do not. >> 172-ish. that's how many there were in july and august and then in that week and a few days before the attack, do you know? >> there were a number of them. i know that. >> yes, ma'am, 83 by our count. that's over 600 rekwechts. you've testified here this morning that you've had none of those reach your desk. is that correct also? >> that's correct. >> tough exchange between republican congressman mike pompeo of kansas and hillary clinton during this first round of testimony today. jake tapper, as we watched some of the effort to go after hillary clinton on what happened in that horrible day september 11th, 2012, when those four americans were killed by that
terrorist incident in libya, are they scoring points against her? or is she holding her own? >> think one of the things i wish the committee members would explore a little bit more is this question of why so many of these requests for additional security from chris steven, from others in libya, things i've been reporting on since october 2012, we have had a lot of testimony in the past two years plus about these requests. when i asked secretary clinton about how i never understood why they weren't met, she said there are security professional who is are the kinds of people who put their lives on the line and assess what is needed and they did not feel that more security needed to be sent to libya. i'm still cure yos as to why that is. do they need more money or funding? do they need more personnel?
why are they not getting the security they need. i hope that when this process is over, we have some answers to that because we have been through a number of hearings where this point has been made, and yet i still don't find that a very satisfying answer while the security experts felt like they didn't need to send more security. those experts, however heroic they are, they were wrong. more security was needed. jim jordan was making a point about the fact that the obama administration, not just secretary clinton, but they made a point out of blaming the attack on that anti-muslim video. as we know, that was not the reason for it. in one of the things that was interesting that the democrats on the benghazi committee have previously released this month had to do with the conversation that secretary clinton had with the e egyptian prime minister at the time in which she said, according to notes taken, we know that the attack had nothing
to do with the film. it was a planned attack, not a protest. that was a day later, september 12th. she also said to him based on the information, we believe the group that claimed responsibility was affiliated with al qaeda. now the next day or later that day, sharia denied having anything to do with the attack. but it definitely shows that there were senior individuals in the obama administration including secretary clinton who had serious concerns that this was not as a result of the video. and yet, within that week, the obama administration, including secretary clinton, continued to say it was the fault of the video. why is that? the theory from the republicans is president obama was in the midst o of an intense reelection fight with mitt romney. this is september 2012. and one of his talking points, one of his selling points for his reelection is al qaeda was on the run and the united states was winning this fight against terrorism and that would undermine that. is that the reason credibility was given to a video even though
hillary clinton, according to e e-mails that we have now from the democrats and republicans, knew that there was credible information that it was not the video. >> a few days later after the attack on september 11th, 2012, susan rice shs the u.s. ambassador, went on five sunday talk shows and raised the speck tor of that video being the cause of what happened in tripoli. >> there was a prosecution o of that film maker for tax evasion and a lot of attention on the film, when we know now that was not the reason for this terrorist attack that killed four americans in libya. i don't think we're going to have somebody in the obama administration say, yes, we were trying to divert attention from our anti-terrorism policy was failing, but that is something that we need to have more questions on and more answers from secretary clinton.
>> and in that exchange, the republican congressman from ohio had with her in an exchange saying you knew that night you were e e-mailing your own family this was a terrorist attack. why didn't you stick with that in the days that followed the administration? >> it sounds like there's a lot of contradictory information she was getting, but that's not what she said. >> standby. everyone standby. much more of our special coverage. in a break right now. they are having lunch. they are getting ready to resume part 2 of this special hearing. the benghazi committee hearing, we'll be right back. [ female announcer ] when you're serious about fighting wrinkles, turn to roc® retinol correxion®. one week, fine lines appear to fade. one month, deep wrinkles look smoother. after one year, skin looks ageless. high performance skincare™ only from roc®. get fast-acting, long-lasting relief from heartburn with it neutralizes stomach acid and is the only product
that forms a protective barrier that helps keep stomach acid in the stomach where it belongs. for fast-acting, long-lasting relief. try gaviscon®. that's a good thing, eligible for medicare? for fast-acting, long-lasting relief. but it doesn't cover everything. only about 80% of your part b medical expenses. the rest is up to you. so consider an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company.a like all standardized medicare supplement insurance plans, they pick up some of what medicare doesn't pay and could save you in out-of-pocket medical costs. call today to request a free decision guide to help you better understand what medicare is all about and which aarp medicare supplement plan works best for you. with these types of plans, you'll be able to visit any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients. plus, there are no networks, and virtually no referrals needed. there's a range of plans to choose from, too,
and they all travel with you anywhere in the country. join the millions who have already enrolled in the only medicare supplement insurance plans endorsed by aarp, an organization serving the needs of people 50 and over for generations... and provided by unitedhealthcare insurance company, which has over 30 years of experience behind it. ♪ call today. remember, medicare supplement insurance helps cover some of what medicare doesn't pay. expenses that could really add up. these kinds of plans could save you in out-of-pocket medical costs. you'll be able to choose any doctor who accepts medicare patients. and there are virtually no referrals needed. so don't wait. with all the good years ahead, look for the experience and commitment to go the distance with you. call now to request your free decision guide. this easy-to-understand guide
more substantiative questions about the secretary's involvement in the days, weeks and months leading up to the attack, during the attack. >> you say this is a fact finding mission, but it sounds like you have drawn your conclusions about what she's done wrong. >> those were evident this morning. i think there's an opportunity
to hear more things. secretary clinton has ample opportunity over the course of this entire day. she's had ample opportunity to describe her situation and her story and she has no stranger to big venues. this is not something that needs our help to tell her story, but we do have a responsibility and that is to find these facts. >> let me just say this. we are trying to find the facts. she says she knew the two big attacks on the facility in benghazi. there were 20 attacks. so what we're trying to find out how many attacks would have been necessary that she knew about would have been necessary for her to give additional security in benghazi. especially after she admits that she got briefed every day she was in d.c. by the