tv Varney Company FOX Business October 22, 2015 9:00am-12:01pm EDT
it a recovering global economy. maria: and he said cash, cash, cash is going to shareholders. thank you, sandra smith, and mr. buckley this morning. stuart is next, have a good show. stuart: benghazi today, we don't think much of congressional hearings on "varney & company," but today is different. this could be a deciding factor in the election. chairman trey gowdy says he has new facts. and when ambassador stevens asked for help and didn't get it and hillary is asking for donations. and we'll take you to the heart of it. don't forget trump right after joe biden said he's not running, the donald says he wants to go up against hillary, he thinks he'll win big.
a quinnipiac poll says carson now beats trump in iowa. don't ever forget california, governor brown wants to pay for sex change for inmates. breaking new ground in the golden state. and the mets, after a week with the cubs, dan murphy hit six home runs. they're onto the world series. what a team. "varney & company" is about to begin. ♪ the fact is we have four dead americans, was it because of a protest or because a guy was out for a walk one night and decided to kill some americans. what difference at this point does it make? >> well, that was hillary more than two years ago, okay? more electric testimony coming up very soon.
this could be a significant factor in the election. how hillary clinton performs, how the republicans question and and don't forget the way that she comes across. personality is important today. look who is going to be here shortly, ed klein, "dislike the problem with hillary", and in just a couple of minutes. all of a sudden we're up 140 points, that's the future. europe, apparently is opening the door to printing some more money and up goes our dow jones industrials average. 140 points. how about mcdonald's? would you look at that? whoa, will you look at that? closed at 102, going to open at 110? why is that? sales up, profits up, the stock's way up. that will be an all-time high when it opens today. and i don't think that's go t the-- got much to do with breakfast all day. cast pillar, a roxie for the
global economy, profits not where they need to be and that stock is going down. not that much. 50 cents, that's it. how about ebay, up big and i mean big. 7% higher, that's the likely open, it spun off paypal and this is the first look at ebay's financials without paypal and investors like it. how about in? thank you. now, i like this. and it's justified. we're back to down a penny a gallon a day for the price of gas. look at that. 2.22 is your national average for regular right now. and i'm hoping we're heading for $2 by christmas. i'm repeating my earlier statement. got to get to hillary. here it is. she will raise her right hand in a little more than an hour and take the oath. joining us, ed klein, he is the author of "unlikable, the problem with hillary", how she comes across today, her personality is extremely important. she will be hard to be likeable. >> exactly, and she spent the
last week boning up on exactly that attitude. you're not going to see the coke-bottled glasses, the flailing arms. you're going to see a polished, a very prepped, sharp, decisive hillary today. i think you're going to see a repeat of the democratic debate and i think she's going to do very, very well. stuart: really? that's your forecast? >> yes. stuart: so she can be likeable given enough preparation and forethought? >> she can pretend to be likeable. stuart: that's pejorative. you don't like her? >> it's know the a question that i don't like her, i'm with 58% of the american public, polls say they find her untrustworthy. i find her untrustworthy. stuart: trey gowdy says he's going to come up with some facts, i don't know if he's going to reveal anything. will facts affect hillary's
position? >> no,i don't think so. he's going to have five democrats on the committee that will say this is a witch hunt. and six republicans each one of whom is going to try to get on the nightly news tonight and do something dramatic about hillary. she's prepared for all this. i think she-- i don't think this is going to change anybody's mind, this particular hearing. stuart: there you have it, ed klein says she will be likeable today and she will win. all right, ed, maybe you'll come back tomorrow. ed klein stay there, i've got more for you longer. i want to talk about the deluge of earnings out today. caterpillar, there are weaker global machinery sales. not that much. 50, 60 cents, that's all you've got. here is market watcher todd
horowitz who joins in new york city. and that's the slowdown story. >> that's the global slowdown, the excuse of the currency, the currency wars, because the currency part is easily hedgeable and-- >> an excuse? >> yes, it's an excuse. they had bad earnings, but they're blaming it on bad currency, which the currency portion of that trade could easily be fixed by anybody who understands the market at all. stuart: a quick question about the dow industrials, and the futures market up about 120 points. you say that's europe opening the door to printing money. >> free money for everybody and let them eat cake and that's what we'll do, because every one of the central bankers have that currency, that printing press ready to go, give money because we want the markets to keep going up. stuart: this just happened and made a statement to that effect. >> this morning, 7:45 eastern time. stuart: that's why we're up 100 and odd points for the dow. stay there, todd, for the opening bell.
here is a headline, look at this. a fresh poll out here, quinnipiac poll, ben carson 28, trump 20. it's the first time since july trump did not have a lead in iowa. trump remains confident. he says he wants, he wants to go against hillary. >> frankly, i really want to run against hillary. you go against that record you're just going to win. we're going to win, we're going to win big. stuart: he says that a lot, okay. according to that quinnipiac poll, carson has a huge lead among women. ashley: he certainly does, by far. interesting, back in september. trump 27% and carson 21. what's interesting though, trump still leads the no way in hell would i vote for him to be president, which is amazing, but carson tops the field by farer margin in honesty and trustworthiness. what's interesting, a little bit of a shift, if you like,
towards carson at least in this poll. stuart: trump seems to have lost some women voters. ashley: he has, he's lost some momentum which is interesting because he's had some, well, you could say some controversial comments about women, hasn't hurt him up until now. stuart: carson picked them up instead of the establishment candidates. ashley: jeb bush going backwards. stuart: and vice-president biden not running. when he first appeared he appeared to have take a shot at hillary. >> i don't believe like some day that it's naive to talk to republicans. i don't think we should look at republicans as our enemies. they are opposition. they're not our enemies. and for the sake of the country, we have to work together. stuart: was that a shot at hillary or a shot at hillary? was that a shot at hillary? >> that's a shot.
they don't like each other, do they? >> they've never gotten along well, extremely reliable sources in the white house tell me that every night valerie jarrett gives brack and michelle obama a nightly update on what the fbi is finding out and what the justice department, there are eight prosecutors in the justice department who are cooperating with the fbi and we saw recently obama on 60 minutes say, there was no national security threat that he could see so far. he told joe biden the same thing and i think in addition to the timing, i think the fact that hillary was not going to be knocked out by an indictment was key to biden's decision. stuart: and i'm going over the time frame here, valerie jarrett advises barack obama on what the probe is on the secret service and maybe she told him that the fbi probably won't indict, therefore, they don't
have a handle on hillary, therefore biden doesn't run. it's kind of conspiracy theory in depth here. but that's the story? >> that's the story. there are eight prosecutors in the justice department who are working with the fbi on this investigation. they are top level people, two of them are elizabeth shapiro and marsha brennan who are considered first class prosecutors and the word from them is it doesn't look like they can find a knowing and intent on hillary's part to breach national security. stuart: they will be searching all over the white house for your source, you know that. thank you very much indeed. big day, thanks a lot. to the mets, why not? they are going to the world series first time in 15 years. look who is here to report the whole story. jo ling kent in case you missed it. jo: let's go to the mets. exciting, it was a big night as they won game four of the
national series, in a sweep of the cubs. the world series starts next week in kansas city or toronto. youtube is launching a paid subscription, youtube red, you can watch videos with no ads starting on october 28th, do not buy it on your iphone, ios users will be charged $3 more. epic "star wars" marketing campaign, that march continues, stuart. 500 stormtroopers climbed the great wall of china in an official celebration of the force awakens. unlike the u.s. there's no release date set for the movie in china just yet so it's pure anticipation. stuart: whatever you say. all on the great wall. i thought i'd seen everything. thank you very much. putin sides with syria's tyrant forming a new alliance in the u.s. and we'll talk to the former ambassador to syria, he
was in damascus serving when barack obama laid down his so-called red line. we will very that next. >> the flaunting of it, putin taking on-- being the publicist for assad now where he's basically proud of helping a genocidal tyrant who's decimating and killing civilians. ♪ the way i see it, you have two choices; the easy way or the hard way. you could choose a card that limits where you earn bonus cash back. or, you could make things easier on yourself. that's right, the quicksilver card from capital one. with quicksilver you earn unlimited 1.5% cash back on every purchase, everywhere.
>> syrian tyrant in moscow making the first known trip outside of this country in four years. my next guest is the former ambassador to syria under president obama. robert ford was in damascus for about a year, i think, is that right? >> until the securities compelled us to close in february of 2012. >> now, we've got iran, syria, putin, and unholy alliance, running a big chunk of the middle east.
what's the outcome of that new game in town? >> it is, as you say an unholy alliance. we've seen fighting escalate in the last few weeks. it means for destruction, it means more refugees going out to places like europe and it's going to make finding a peace agreement even harder, i think. stuart: you were there when assad crossed the red line president obama laid down the red line, don't you use those chemical weapons, he did, he crossed it, nothing happened. what's your judgment of president obama's handling of the red line and the chemical weapons situation? >> it's not that nothing happened. we got half a loaf. we got some chemical weapons out of syria, but we certainly didn't get them all and assad has been using, for example, chlorine gas repeatedly since that 2013 deal. stuart: so what's your thoughts on president obama's handling of it. >> the net out of that is two things, the russians decided some squishiness in the
american position, some weakness. second, the syrian opposition moderates who were depending on western countries like the united states, they themselves were weakened and we saw extremists gather strength in syria after that time. stuart: you resigned your ambassadorship because of president obama's policy? >> i had to resign because i couldn't defend the policy publicly anymore. i knew the policy wasn't working. stuart: a negative on president obama and i'm not trying to put words in your mouth, but what happened here? >> the policy has failed to contain the conflict in syria which was its goal. instead we have refugees going out to europe by the tens of thousands, actually caution political problems in european friends now, like britain, like germany. we have terrorist extremist group, the islamic state which now controls about half of the geography of syria so it's not contained, it's actually getting worse. stuart: could i make the general statement, putin wins, america loses? >> well, i don't know that
putin's going to win. putin-- well, i don't know that he's winning now. he's stepped into a deep pile of something so we'll see. what i would say is that putin has put russia back on the map in the middle east and it's clear now that, for example, if we're going to have peace talks about syria, the russians are going to have a really big role, bigger than they might have had a year ago. stuart: ambassador, thank you for joining us. >> my pleasure. stuart: all right, the man who designed the iphone meeting with obama and friend, vogue editor anna wintour all about-- >> and sarah jessica parker and anna wintour hold this. >> you don't have to put on that accent, anna wintour, you don't have to put that on to
>> wake up and look at this. the dow will open about 130 points. apparently the europeans are opening the door to more money printing. always goes down well. up she goes, maybe 130. there's a hurricane bearing down on the west coast of mexico, called patricia, a category 1 storm expecting to hit tourist cities like acapulco and porta did thes puerto villarta. andwarable technology meets fashion. christina warren is here from mashable. warable technology is coming of age. >> and they're increasingly becoming a fashion brand. stuart: wait, wait, they're a fashion brand? the watch, right? >> the watch and even the devices, all the products has a
fashionable element. with the watches, the different bands and a partnership with hermes. stuart: pass a judgment. you'll make judgment for us. pass an opinion. is it a fashion brand now, the apple watch. stick to the watch. >> the watch is absolutely a fashion product. it has a fashionable aspect and that's why it's successful. stuart: do we know if people buy an i-watch, it's as a fashion accessory? >> a lot of them want a smart watch, but want something that looks good on their risk and customize and be functional and beautiful. stuart: and apple is partnering with the right person, anna wintour? >> they're sponsoring the met gala this year about the intersection of fashion and technology and that's clear by them sponsoring this exhibition
that they want to be seen as more than a tech company. stuart: you're taking me far too seriously. >> it's a serious thing, and anna wintour, who cannot be serious? >> where is your apple watch? >> i left it at home, don't-- ments i want to see it next time. >> i wear it almost every day and i forgot the charger. stuart: it's a fashion statement, right? >> it's a fashion statement. you're going to love the market when it opens. and mcdonald's, i'm loving it. it will hit a brand new high, $110 a share. ashley: all-day breakfast. stuart: and hillary clinton appears before the benghazi committee about a half hour from now. fireworks are promised, we'll see about that. we're going to take you right to the heart of it. you, my friend, recognize when a trend has reached critical mass. that's what a type e* does.
with e*trade's investing insights center, you can spot trends before they become trendy. when a moment spontaneously turns romantic, why pause to take a pill? and why stop what you're doing to find a bathroom? cialis for daily use, is the only daily tablet approved to treat erectile dysfunction so you can be ready anytime the moment is right. plus cialis treats the frustrating urinary symptoms of bph, like needing to go frequently, day or night. tell your doctor about all your medical conditions and medicines, and ask if your heart is healthy enough for sex. do not take cialis if you take nitrates for chest pain, as it may cause an unsafe drop in blood pressure. do not drink alcohol in excess. side effects may include headache, upset stomach, delayed backache or muscle ache. to avoid long-term injury, get medical help right away for an erection lasting more than four hours. if you have any sudden decrease or loss in hearing or vision, or any symptoms of an allergic reaction, stop taking cialis and get medical help right away. ask your doctor about cialis for daily use. insurance coverage has expanded nationally
>> i have breaking news for you. a senior defense department official said a special ops raid rescued quote, numerous iraqis held captive by isis. the officials say the hostages why not kurds and would not comment on alleged u.s. fatalities. that's coming in. we're 25 odd seconds away from the opening of the stock market. you'll like it. the dow jones industrials will
be up over 100 points. initial reason for this is that the europeans printed money and wall street likes that. we're up 130 points when that market gets up and running. wait for it, we're not open yet, when we do open, i'm going to show you mcdonald's, you will like that, too, i'm loving it. we're off and running, up we go, 12 points higher, 31 points higher, we're up 33, it's a nice day, isn't it? can we see mcdonald's? i do believe they have, whoa, 7%. ashley: all time high was 105.20 and blew that away. stuart: and we do like that. joining us, ashley webster who you've seen and elizabeth mcdonald's and todd horowitz joins us. is that a turn around? >> i think it's a statement to the economy as well. they're getting more best because people don't have
enough money so they're going to mcdonald's more often now than before. stuart: down markets as opposed to expanding economy. >> same thing, unfortunately didn't happen with wal-mart, too. stuart: the numbers from mcdonald's does not include all-day breakfast. ashley: no, essentially same-store sales were up. the first time we've seen a rise in two years, analysts expected another decline and another reason why the stock is moving higher. all day breakfast wasn't included in this. they sates the crisp deluxe chicken sandwich. stuart: are you going to throw cold water on this? liz: no, the best comfort food, breakfast for dinner. stuart: and it was hoped more money, down a fraction, 2%, that's all it is, come on in. we're talking about a global slowdown here and caterpillar in that trend. is the global economy slowing as much as we thought it was?
>> well, i don't know about the global economy? it's certainly not going as fast as we'd like it to. caterpillar's sales have been down time a and time again. i'm not sure they can now. are people in a big hurry to buy that kind of equipment right now? it doesn't seem like they are. it's not good for caterpillar. they have a lot of work to do. stuart: you say this is specific to caterpillar and not to the global economy. tom horowitz, are you going to take him on? >> i am. this is production and farming, the earnings here, they priced this in. but the global economy is slowing down, the free money is going to end and the legalized pot that they're running is going to end at some point. this is not going to end pretty. stuart: that's why the dow industrials are up 140 points, free money for everyone. >> keeping it up. stuart: larry levin. i want to ask you about gas prices because we're down again
today, down to $1.22-- i'm sorry, 2.22 is the national average. larry, are we going to hit $2 a gallon national average by christmas? >> i think we could, stuart. or at least we could get close. i don't think we're on the lows yet. i think there's room for the downside. we've seen oil rally back up. 60 rate and come back down again. and technically, the support isn't there and there could be some resistance on the upside. stuart: i'm grinding my ax because i want $2 gasoline. am i going to get it, ash. ashley: i think by christmas, yes. there's a glut of oil and fundamentals have not allowed it to move higher, very close. stuart: elizabeth macdonald liz: you'll drive all over kingdom come. stuart: $2 by christmas liz: yes. stuart: you're back in the club. >> i'm in the club, too. stuart: i've got other stocks moving this morning and run
through the list, american express down. revenue down. lower forecast and stock down by 5%. and 3m cutting 1500 jobs, that's 5%, they've got a drop in profits and apparently like the job cuts, not much, but up. profits up at dunkin', they make good coffee. the stock is down 70 cents, 40 on dunkin', how about yahoo! the day after the stock shopped on weak ad revenue. yahoo!. chipotle, it was slammed yesterday, some are telling us the bloom is off rose. down more, chipotle down another $3 today. how about ebay? that stock is way up today. liz, what's -- 10% gain for ebay, that's big liz: that's big. and there is life after paypal that split away in july. boosting its outlook for the
holiday season and posting solid earnings and revenues coming in, meeting analyst expectations. 2.1. stuart: this is an on-line holiday season. ashley: oh, yes. stuart: pick one. now, completely different, texas instruments, i know it's a winner, i'm going to nicole to tell me why. nicole: technology is one of the best performing sectors today. texas instruments, this second it's up almost 10%. that's a big move, right? they beat on the profit, they beat on the revenue and gave us better than expected outlooks on the quarter. they're known for chips and analysts say the likes of apple, doing well selling to ge. automobiles, infrastructure. and i'm sorry, industrials doing so well and that the end markets are great. so far, so good for texas instruments today. stuart: that's interesting, nicole. all of this talk, it's not going to be a very good earnings season and some of the big names have not performed that well. but overall, it doesn't seem like it's that bad.
a quick comment from you, nicole. >> this is a winner, we'll zoo what the rest brings and this one shines. stuart: it's disappointing before and-- >> make sure i don't get buzzed. look, we've lowered the expectations so low, how can you not beat them? $4 trillion from the federal reserve and now we're being-- god bless america. [laughter] >> expectations can be manipulated. >> of course. stuart: and quite deliberate. that's why i never ever want to use the word below expectations like that. that's a misleading idea liz: that's what investor relations are all about. managing and-- >> they're trying to manipulate everybody's information so you give them what they want. it stinks. stuart: okay. and the dow jones industrial average six minutes into this thursday morning session is now up 109 points. 17,278. all right, let's look at ferrari. this is the day after the big ipo.
it gained a little ground yesterday after the opening 52. 57, up $2 now. all right. you've got that sour look on your face again, todd. you're not a ferrari kind of guy? >> i'd love a ferrari, but i'm not buying their stock. stuart: why? >> i haven't seen the value, i don't know if they can perform. i think in the overall economy, i don't think they can perform that well. i love the car. stuart: i've got to say that the stock was priced properly. if you go out at 52 and goes up to 55, i think you've got a-- >> a good job. stuart: that's true. valeant pharmaceutical, here is the story, down again today. bill ackman, billionaire kind of guy, he bought shares of valeant on the dip yesterday and there's another dip today, down 17 bucks. ashley. isn't this-- >> from citron, shorts this stalk and calling them a
pharmaceutical enron. saying they operate the mail order distribution companies and they control, and prop up the prices and stop people from getting cheaper generic drugs and they deny it vehemently. ackman, pershing squares was one of the shareholders and now-- >> i have a problem with it-- >> it's a conflict of interest liz: they're saying something -- that valeant is shoving the drugs into booking pharmacies. >> they're trying to manipulate their own position to make the market go lower. it's the same thing. stuart: you short a stock and then put out a report. >> and they tweet out, i bought this and liz: talk about shorts, they're like lizards, they'll eat what's in front of them. they'll eat anything, just so you know. stuart: a delightful image we
have there. >> thank you very much. stuart: and politics, please. a new quinnipiac poll, but not a blockbuster, but a surprise. dr. ben carson takes over in iowa, 28 versus 20. larry levin, are you still there? we've neglected you. yes, larry. we've got the poll on the screen from iowa. carson 28, trump 20. what does a chicago guy think about that? >> well, i mean, carson, i guess, if you look at one poll in iowa he's taken a lead. i'm a trump fan, i believe you are, too, fan. if you watched you, stuart, on fox news talking about entrepreneurship and how important that is to the country. donald trump is a believer. i don't think that dr. ben carson is a believer in it that's what we need here in this country and hoping for. that poll makes me a little nervous because i want donald trump in there. and i think that's going to-- i've never heard that
forthright let's go to are trump. don't label me as a trump supporter, i'm strictly neutral. [laughter] oh. >> you want capitalism, don't you, stuart? >> yeah, i do, i'm a capitalist kind of guy, believe that, and i was saying that on fox and friend. >> yeah, i thought. stuart: that doesn't make me a trump supporter, i could be a jeb bush supporter, rand paul, they're all capitalists. >> you're a -- not an obama supporter, right? >> i think that larry has great points. we need free market capitalism and what we call price discovery back. where the market tells you what the prices are, and bond tell you what the interest rates are, not mario draghi coming out and saying we're doing this. and all of this will create a bigger problem down the road. ashley: the interesting thing about the poll, jeb bush is
falling backward. tied at 5% with fiorina. and this is candidate they're trying to pump up and get some traction and get going and he hasn't caught on. stuart: ashley told us earlier that carson's rise in iowa in the quinnipiac poll, he got a lot of women voters for him liz: that's a big deal and sanders looks like he's beating hillary in new hampshire. stuart: well, he's a neighbor at vermont liz: that's truth. stuart: and now, todd, he is a trump supporter and now he's putting 150 million-- not directly to trump, it goes to a third party. that's what it's all about. >> listen, i like his thoughts of free markets and capitalism, but i also have some things that he doesn't do that he creates a lot of his own manipulations by a lot of his tweeting out. stuart: talking about trump or
icahn? >> icahn. i don't like what icahn does with his manipulation of the media when he tweets out, i just bought apple. if he's putting money in he may be looking to buy some himself. stuart: no, he wants to be the treasury secretary in the trump administration. it's a joke liz: it's a joke. stuart: it's a joke. it's thursday morning, 12 minutes into the session, 17,289. you know we like to follow tech stocks closely on this program. four tech stocks report earnings after the close today. those stocks are amazon, google, microsoft and pandora. check those stocks now, i think they're all of them ever so slightly higher before the numbers. and 4:00 this afternoon after the closing bell. david and melissa have you covered here on the fox business network. next, the most senior spy in the country hacked by a teenager.
secret cia information now being published by wikileaks, and anyone can be subject to embarrassment or blackmail. yes, we are. former cia agent mike baker here on this subject next. ♪ ♪ (singing) you wouldn't haul a load without checking your clearance. so why would you invest without checking brokercheck? check your broker with brokercheck. you can't breathed. through your nose. suddenly, you're a mouthbreather. well, just put on a breathe right strip which instantly opens your nose up to 38% more than cold medicine alone. shut your mouth and say goodnight mouthbreathers. breathe right
>> hillary clinton is on her way to the hearing room where she will be questioned about benghazi. she'll make her way to the chamber where the questioning will take place it's set for 10:00 eastern time and preparations are made right now. we've seen the media setting up microphones and cameras and you can see the media right now waiting for her to come along a corridor and walk into the chamber where the questioning will begin. that's the media, and she's
coming right about now, there you have it. that's hillary clinton. lady and gentlemen, we don't like congressional testimony on this program that much. sometimes we find it quite frankly, rather boring. today is totally different. this matters. this counts. the it many -- the testimony you will be hearing today may well play a significant role in the election next year. ashley: it's a pivotal moment for the campaign. stuart: it's a pivotal moment. hillary clinton says it's a political exercise and they're out to get her. trey gowdy says, look, we've got new facts. we're going to present facts, not going to have shouting and screaming and arguing. you're going to have facts and hillary will answer the questions. it could go on all day long. this could go all the way through the day. we'll take you there when the action starts right there. at 10:00 eastern. meanwhile. we've got action on wall
street, the dow is up 140 points. mcdonald's opening at an all-time high. same-store sales are up for the first time in years. they're selling a lot of burgers, mcdonald's making $109 a share. they were at 110 moments ago. i've got big -- other big winners for you. ebay, texas instruments, dow chemicals, southwest airlines. lots of different industry groups, all on the up side with the dow up 141. i want to get to the report. a defense department official says that a special ops raid did take place and rescued captives held by isis. the hostages were not kurd and they would not say where the raid took place, but it did take place. more on that later. over the weekend, an anonymous hacker claims to have broken into john brennan's accounts, stealing e-mails and accounts
and contact information. yesterday, wikileaks published these. and joining us is mike baker, a former cia official. this is incredible, a young person, a teenager, reportedly a pot head, who breaks into the private e-mail system of the director of the cia, i'm trying hard to get my arms around that one and you, too, i guess? >> well, yeah, trying to get my head around the idea that aol exists as a company still. that surprised a lot of people. what it does, it exposes sort of a typical manner in which, whether it's this self-professed pothead, you know, who did this reportedly or anyone else who goes out there as an individual and tries to phish for everythings in. kind of the process. people should read the story and read what's been put out there because it's instructive in terms of how people try to gather your personal information. and what they're looking at so far, aside from his security clearance application, i don't
know if it was a completed application as opposed to he just started it. it doesn't look like anything that was sensitive, it doesn't look like he was conducting business at the aol account. stuart: the point is it was hacked, mike, and if you can hack the head of the agency and you could hack an account in chappaqua. >> it's his personal account. hillary was running a personal server, a there want any firewall, as there wasn't on any director's account. stuart: and wikileaks published this. and did the publishing of the
wikileak secrets, did it affect you. >> none of it's helpful. i know, that was a rocket science statement. we had the recent disclosures that all the background work, the forms that the government uses for background clearances and checks were released on millions of people going back years and years and years and years. now, i know to the degree that the specificity of this that you have to put on for clearances, you think about what that means and all the information that you provided, yes, as i pointed out in a generic way, it's definitely not helpful, but at this stage. game again, i would look at this and say this is instructive, people should go back and see how this individual went and phished and calling to get information from verizon in order to get information for this hack and how they should protect their own information. if i can say one thing about benghazi, about the hearing coming up, if you wouldn't
mind, i know i'm going off topic. stuart: go ahead. >> i think people as they start to watch it as part of the concession for getting hillary clinton to come up on the hill to do this hearing at what point was she given the questions she is going to be asked tore add with are she was given the questions days in advan advance. stuart: i don't know the answer to the question. >> i think they should ask that. stuart: guarantee you and your cia friends will be watching this closely. >> absolutely, i hope they stay on point. i would prefer to see if just trey gowdy had been asking the questions and the commit say this to them, have one point so they don't disappear. at some point during the course of the evening in the white house room, the decision was not to send in the cavalry, the decision made not to send in reenforcements to help people
on the ground, but not that they would have, but they would try. >> you've got trey gowdy and six other republicans want to be on the evening news and may well go off topic and give some kind of rant. i don't know that i'm right. thank you, we'll see you soon. it's moments away, hillary clinton is on capitol hill. we saw her arrive moments ago for her testimony. a special committee could be about to bring some new revelations. trey gowdy, the chair, has promised revelations, new facts. we'll have more varney after this. at mfs investment management, we believe active management can protect capital long term. active management can tap global insights. active management can take calculated risks. active management can seek to outperform.
ardo you have there? coverage you need? open enrollment ends december 7th. don't put it off 'til later. now's the time to get on a path that could be right for you... with unitedhealthcare medicare solutions. call today to learn about the kinds of coverage we offer, including aarp medicarecomplete plans insured through unitedhealthcare. these medicare advantage plans can combine parts a and b, your hospital and doctor coverage... with part d prescription drug coverage, and extra benefits... all in one complete plan... for a low monthly premium,
or in some areas no plan premium at all. unitedhealthcare doesn't stop there. you'll have $0 co-pays for preventive services... like an annual physical and most immunizations. other benefits can include routine vision and hearing coverage and the pharmacy saver program gives you access to prescriptions as low as $1.50... at your local pharmacy, in retail locations like these. or pay zero dollars for a 90-day supply of your tier 1 and tier 2 drugs, delivered right to your door. just a few ways we connect you with the people and programs... to help give you a better healthcare experience. call to enroll today and enjoy these benefits and more, like renew by unitedhealthcare, that rewards you for making healthy choices. your healthcare needs are unique. that's why, with over 30 years of medicare experience, we'll be there to help you along the way -- we can even schedule your appointments.
open enrollment ends december 7th. so don't wait another day. if you're medicare eligible, call now... and talk to unitedhealthcare about our plans, like aarp medicarecomplete. let's get you on the right path. call unitedhealthcare today. ♪ >> the fact is, we had four dead americans, was it because of a protest or because a guy is out for a walk one night and decided to go kill americans. what difference at this point does it make? >> that was two years ago. moments from now, hillary clinton testifies again on benghazi. emily tisch sussman is here who leans toward the democrats. i think safely say that, is that correct, emily? >> safely left.
stuart: we'll take that. earlier we had ed klein on the show and he is absolutely not a friend of hillary clinton, but he did say he expects hillary to win today, to come out looking good, poised ready wither had answers and to treat it as a political attack, which she will jump right overment . i take it you will agree with that point of view? >> i will agree with that assessment. successful as you say treating it as a political attack, coming straight forward, dealing with facts and staying calm. that's the way she wins this with facts. stuart: if trey gowdy reveals new facts, new revelations based in facts, and not mrings, if he comes up with facts, hillary might have a problem, you would agree with na? >> i don't know that she would have a problem. she doesn't have to be searching for an answer. she knows what happened. she was involved, she was heavily involved so it's not like she would have to craft an answer at that moment, but it's
pretty unlikely he'll be coming forward with something totally new. this company has been stalled and done little. it's hard to say what he'd come up with that's shocking today. i know that narrative is out there, but it would be surprising. stuart: but we don't know that. i mean, there's trey gowdy, approaching his seat as the chair of the committee and they're getting seated and hillary clinton is there already and she's made her entrance. i've got to leave it like this, emily, you think she'll come out as a winner and this will enhance her position within the democrat party as the presidential candidate and she's about to enter the hall now. last comment to you, emily. >> not only enhance her with democrats, with voters overall because this issue will be put to bed. she will be straight forward and the company will look political. stuart: thank you for being with us. i'm sure you'll be glued to the committee and we are waiting with baited breath what happens
at 10:00, i'll repeat something, on "varney & company" we're not keen on congressional hearings, frankly we find them rather boring. we don't expect this to be boring at all. we expect this to have real meaning for the election next year. i don't want to go too far here, but you could say that this to some degree make or break for hillary clinton. ashley: a pivotal moment. stuart: am i going too far here? too much liz: no, campaign ads will be built on this performance here. stuart: the endless sound bites available today for use by the political parties liz: including expressions and. ashley: she'll be buttoned down, to ed klein's point. she will have it buttoned down and i think she'll do fine. >> we've got art laffer, this is nothing to do with -- this is security and benghazi, i'll
ask you nonetheless, hillary clinton is now the obvious democrat nominee, i don't see much way around about that. what do you make of her economic policies, give me 30 seconds on that. >> i don't like her economic policies, the opposite of her husband's policies which i did like a lot. i voted for bill clinton twice and thought he was a great president on the economy and so far, what hillary espoused is the opposite of what her husband did and i don't think it's very good. now, as far as hillary goes, i think she's a very confident person and impressive in her own right, but she's just wrong. stuart: if she does badly today, i don't know if she'll do well. if she does badly would you buy the stock market, art? >> i'm buying the stock market, i don't think she'll win, i think her time has passed and bernie sanders has passed, and once we have the governors and state legislatures, the house, the senate, the presidency,
we'll be able to do a policy that will do wonderful for america. stuart: art laffer, we want commentary as we get into this. as you can see, hillary clinton is shaking hands with all the members of the committee who she will be taking questions from momentarily. she's about to take her se there will also be an opening statement from the leader of the democrats on this committee. hillary clinton will make an opening statement as well. we will carry all those opening statements in full. then the questioning will begin. we will carry it back, too. we will break away from commentary. we will keep you up-to-date with exactly what has been said all the way through. remember, please, this is important. possibly a deciding factor in the upcoming election.
quiet is descending among capitol hill. right there in that hill. let's listen. >> good morning. welcome bottom secretary. this is a public hearing on the benghazi committee. there are predetermined breaks, but i want to make it absolutely clear that we can take a break for any reason or for no reason. if you or anyone would simply alert me, then we will take a break and it can be for any reason or for no reason. to have you here. the witness deserves to hear the questions in the members deserve to hear the answers. proper decorum must be observed at all time. no reactions to questions or answers. some committees take an incremental approach. i do not. this is your one and only notice. we will give opening statements.
you will be recognized for your opening statements. after that, the members will alternate from one side to the other. because you have are ready been sworn, we will go straight to your openings. i will now recognize myself and then recognized mr. cummings and then you, madam secretary. >> chris stevens, john smith, tyrone would serve this country with encourage and with honor. they were killed under circumstances most of us could never imagine. terrorist war through the front gate attacking people and property with machine guns, mortars. it is important that we remember how these four men died. it is equally important that we remember how these four men lived and why.
they were more then four images on a television screen. they were husbands and fathers and sons and others in family and friends. they were americans who believed in service and sacrifice. many people speak of a better world. but they do little about it. these four win out and actually tried to make it better. it cost them their lives. we know what they gave us, what do we owe them. justice for those who killed them. we owe their families our everlasting gratitude, respect. we owe them and each other the truth. the truth about why we were in libya. the truth about what we were doing in libya. the truth about the escalating violence in libya before we were
attacked. the truth about requests for additional security. the truth about requests for additional personnel. the truth about requests for additional equipment. the truth about where and why our military was positioned as it was on the anniversary of 9/11 here and the truth about what was happening and being discussed in washington while our people were under attack. the truth about what led to the attacks and what the government told the american people after the attacks. why were there so many requests for more security personnel and equipment and why were those requests tonight in washington. why did the state department compounded facility, not even come close to proper security specifications. what policies were we pursuing in libya? who and washington was aware of the escalating violence?
what caution, if any, were taken on the anniversary of 9/11. what happened in washington after the first attack and what was our response to that attack? what did the military do or not do? what did our leaders in washington do and not do and when? why was the american public event such divergent account of what caused these attacks. why is it so hard to get information from the very government these four men represented, served and sacrificed four. even after and accountability review board, he's and other questions still linger. previous investigations. they were not thorough. these questions linger because of previous investigations being narrow and incapable or unwilling to access the facts and evidence necessary to answer all relevant questions.
they asked this committee to write the final definitive accounting of what happened in benghazi. this committee was the first committee to review more than 50,000 pages of documents because we insisted that they be produced. this committee is the first committee to demand access to more eyewitnesses because they talk to as many eyewitnesses as possible. this committee is the first committee to thoroughly and individually interviewed scores of other witnesses. many of them for the first time. this committee is the first committee to review thousands of pages of documents for top state department personnel. this committee is the first committee to demand access to relevant documents from the cia, fbi, apartment of defense, even the white house. this committee is the first to demand access to e-mails to and
from ambassador chris stevens. how could an investigation possibly be considered serious? without reviewing the e-mails of the person most knowledgeable about libya. this committee is the first committee, the only committee to uncover the fact that secretary clinton exclusively use personal e-mail on her own personal server for all official business. including e-mails about benghazi and libya. control for two years after she left. you will hear a lot today about the accountability review board. secretary clinton has mentioned that more than 70 times. when you hear about the arab league, you should also know that the state department leadership. they never reviewed the e-mails. secretary clinton's top advisor
was allowed to review and suggest changes before the public ever saw it. there is no transcript. it is impossible to know whether all relevant questions were asked and answered. because there is no transcript, it is also impossible to cite the interviews with any particularity at all. that is not independent. that is not accountability. that is not a serious investigation. you will hear previous investigations and that is true. it should make you wonder why those investigations failed to interview so many witnesses and access so many documents. if those previous investigations were serious and thorough, how did they miss ambassador stephens e-mails? if those previous investigations were serious and arrow, how did they miss secretary clinton's e-mails? if those congressional investigations really were serious and thorough, why did
they fail to interviewed dozens of key state department witnesses, including agents on the ground to experience the attacks firsthand? just last month, three years after benghazi, top aides finally returned documents to the state department. one month ago, this committee received 1500 new pages of secretary clinton's e-mails related to libya and benghazi. three years after the attacks. a little over two weeks, 1400 pages of ambassador stephens e-mails three years after the attacks. it is impossible to conduct a serious investigation without access to the documents from the former secretary of state. the ambassador that knew more about libya then anyone else and testimony from witnesses that survived the attacks. madam secretary, i understand there i did that there are
people both sides that suggest that this investigation is about you. let me assure you it is not and let me assure you why it is not. there were four killed representing our country on foreign soil. it is about what happened before, during and after the attacks that killed them. it is about what this country owes to those who risk their lives to serve it. it is about the fundamental obligation of government to tell the truth always to the people that it reports to represent. that of secretary, not a single member of this committee signed up to investigate you or your e-mail. we signed up to investigate and therefore honor the lives of four people that we sent into a dangerous country to represent
us and to do everything we can to prevent it from happening to others. our committee has interviewed half a hundred witnesses. not a single one of them has been named clinton until today. the secretary of state. for this country. all relevant times. of course the committee will want to talk to you. you are an important witness. you are one important witness among half a hundred important witnesses. i do understand you wanted to come sooner than today, so let me be clear why that did not happen. you had an unusual e-mail arrangement. it meant that the state department could not produce your e-mails to us. you made exclusive use of personal e-mail and a personal server. when you left the state department, you left it to yourself for almost two years.
it was you and your attorneys to decide what to return and what to delete. those decisions were your decision, not our decisions. it was only an at march that we learned of this e-mail arrangement. since we have learned of the e-mail arrangement, we have interviewed dozens of witnesses. only one of whom that was solely related to your e-mail arrangement. that was the shortest interview of all. that witness evoked his fifth amendment privilege against incrimination. the public record being company. it was important and remains important to this committee that they have access to all of ambassador's event e-mails, e-mails of other leaders and it is important to gain access to all of your e-mails, madam secretary. your e-mails are no less or no more important in the e-mails of anyone else. it just took us a little bit
longer to get them. it garnered a little bit more attention in the process. i want you to take note during this hearing how may times congressional democrats: this administration to make long-awaited documents available to us. take note how many witnesses congressional democrats ask us to schedule for interview. we would be much closer to finding out what happened and writing the final definitive reported democrats on this committee had helped us just a little bit pursue the fax. the democrats on this committee had their way, dozens of witnesses never would have been interviewed here and your public record with soapy private. thousands of documents never would have been accessed. we would not have the e-mails of our own ambassador. it is a lousy way to run a serious investigation.
there are certain characteristics that made our country unique. the greatest experiment in self-government to world has ever known. part of that self-governance comes self scrutiny. even of the highest. the country is strong enough to handle the truth and our fellow citizens expect us to pursue the truth wherever the fax take us. this committee will do what we pledge to do and what should have been done frankly a long time ago which is interview all relevant witnesses, examine all relevant evidence and all relevant documents. we will pursue the truth in the memory of the four people that lost their lives and worthy of the respect of our fellow citizens. a final definitive account of what happened and then godsey.
we would like to do it with your help in the help of our democrat colleagues. but make no mistake, we will do it nonetheless. understanding what happened and benghazi leads to the heart of who we are as a country and the promises we make to those that we send into harms way. they deserve the truth. they deserve the whole truth. they deserve nothing but the truth. people we work for deserve the truth here and the people who lost their lives in the family deserve the truth. we will find the truth. there is no statute of limitations on the truth. with that, i will recognize my friend from maryland. stuart: a sharp edge opening statement. he wants the fax. he wants the truth. we have not had an investigation thus far. he is expected to say this is political theater. this is a political attack.
let's listen. >> the truth. the whole truth. and nothing but the truth. secretary, i want to thank you very much for being here today to testify before congress. a very important issue. this is your third time. this week our chairman was interviewed and a link the media profile. during these interviews, he complained that he was, and i call, and impossible job. he said it was impossible to conduct a serious fact centric investigation to a political environment. i have great respect for the chairman. he is absolutely wrong.
in fact, it has been timed by his own republican colleagues in the house on this very issue, then godsey. the republican chairman of the house intelligence committee conducted an extensive bipartisan two-year investigation and issued a detailed report. the senate intelligence committee, the senate homeland security committee also conducted a bipartisan investigation. those bipartisan efforts respected and honored the memories of the four great americans who gave their lives and benghazi. chris stevens. sean smith. woods. the problem is the republicans in the caucus did not like the
answers that they got from those investigations. they set up this committee with no rules, no deadlines, and an unlimited budget. they said them loose, madam secretary, because you are running for president. clearly, it is possible to conduct a serious bipartisan investigation. what is impossible is for any reasonable person to continue t 9 the republican squandering millions of taxpayer dollars on this abusive effort to derail secretary clinton's presidential campaign. the chairman's interview. try to defend by accepting the cash himself.
he complained about a tax on the credibility of this select committee. his argument would be more compelling if republicans were not leading the charge. we all know representatives kevin mccarthy, speaker boehner's second-in-command, the chairman's close friends admitted to establish the select committee and drive down the phone numbers. democrats did not say that. second in command in the house said that. a republican. the select committee was "you signed" designed to go after secretary clinton. one of the chairman's own handpicked investigators, a self proclaimed conservative republican charged that he was fired in part for not going along with these plans to
"hyperfocus on hillary clinton." they reflect exactly what we have seen inside the select committee. let's just take a look at the facts. since january, republicans have canceled every single hearing scheduled for the entire year except for this one, secretary clinton veered also canceled numerous interviews that they had planned with the defense department and the cia officials. instead of doing that, they said that they were going to zero in on secretary clinton. these writers, the it stampers, coke campaign officials. this is what the republicans did. not the democrats. speaker boehner justified it by
arguing that it was "cross jurisdictional lines." i assume he meant that we would focus on more than just secretary of state. madam secretary, you are sitting there by yourself. secretary of defense is not under left. director of the cia is not on your right. that is because republicans abandoned their own plans. to question those top officials. instead of being cross jurisdictional, republicans just crossed them off the list. last weekend, the chairman told republican colleagues to shut up. stop talking about this select committee. what i want to know is this. and this is a key question. why tell the republicans to shut up when they are telling the
truth? not when they are attacking secretary clinton. accusations that are false. why not tell them to shut up then? carly fiorina said that secretary clinton has blood on her hands. like huckabee accused her of a ignoring the warning calls of dying americans. senator ron paul said benghazi was a 3:00 a.m. phone call that she never picked up. senator lindsey graham tweeted, where were you on the night of the benghazi attack? everyone on this knows these accusations are baseless. my own investigation and all those before it. yet top republican members of this committee remained silent. on monday, the democrats issued
a report showing that none of the 54 witnesses the committee interviewed substantiated these wild republican claims. hillary clinton did not order the military to stand down. she neither approved nor denied the additional security. i asked that that report be included in the record for today's hearing. what is so telling is that we issued virtually the same report one year ago. same report. when we first joined the select committee, i asked my fans to put together a database setting forth the questions that had been asked about the attacks and all the answers that were provided in the eight previous
investigations. i asked that this report also be included in the record, mr. chairman. the problem is rather than accepting these facts, republicans continue to spend new conspiracy theories. for example. the chairman recently tried to argue that sidney blumenthal, secretary clinton's primary advisor. this past sunday, representative from pale claimed on national television that secretary clinton relied on cindy blumenthal for most of her intelligence on libya. earlier this week, the washington post fact checker -- here's the bottom line. the select committee has spent
17 months and $4.7 million of taxpayer money, we have held for hearings and conducted 54 interviews and depositions. yes, we have received some new e-mails from secretary clinton, ambassador stephen and others. yes, we have conducted some new interviews. these documents and interviews do not show any activity. in fact, it is just the opposite. we are the new from a previous investigations. they do not change the basic implosions. this time and it is time now. the taxpayer-funded expedition. we need to come together and
shift from politics to policy. that is what the american people want. shifting from politics to policy. our promises to the families. they'll have access to do three things. do not make this a political football. two, find the fax. three, do everything in your power to make sure that this does not happen again. we need to start focusing on what we hear in congress. improving the safety and security of our diplomatic board in the future. >> thank you. stuart: you by shortcomings. now we will hear from hillary clinton. listen, please. >> the terrorist attacks at our
compound and later at the cia post in benghazi libya on september 11, 2012, took the lives of four brave americans. ambassador chris stevens, john smith, len dority and tyrone woods. i am here to honor the service of those for men. the courage of the diplomatic security agency and the cia officers who risk their lives that night. the work their colleagues do every single day all over the world. i knew and admired chris stevens. he was one of our nation's most accomplished diplomats. chris's mother like to say that he had sand in sanded issues because he was always moving, always working. especially in the middle east.
when the revolution broke out in libya, we named chris as our envoy to the opposition. there was no easy way to get him into benghazi to begin gathering information and meeting those libyans who were rising up against the murderous dictators. he found a way to get himself they are on a greek cargo ship. just like a 19th century american envoy. his work was very much 21st century hard-nosed diplomacy. it is a testament to the relationships that he builds in libya that on the day following the awareness, tens of thousands of libyans poured into the street and benghazi.
they do not represent benghazi or islam. sorry people of america. this is not the behavior of our islam or our profit. chris stevens, a friend to all libyans. although i did not have the privilege of meeting sean smith personally, he was a valued member of our state department family. air force veteran, and information management officer who had served baghdad, montréal and hague. tyrone woods and glenn dority worked for the cia. they were killed by mortar fire
at the cia's outpost in benghazi. a short distance from the diplomatic compound. they were both former navy seals and trained paramedics with distinguished records of service in iraq and afghanistan. i call the honor to lead and the responsibility to support nearly 70,000 diplomats and development experts around the globe. losing any one of them, as we did in iraq, afghanistan, mexico, haiti and libya, during my tenure was deeply painful. for our entire state department and family and for me personally. i was the one who asked chris to
go to libya as our envoy. i was the one who recommended him to be our ambassador to the president. after the attack, i stood next to president obama as marines carried his casket and those of the other three americans off the plane at andrews air force base. i took responsibility. as part of that, before i left office, i launched reforms to better protect our people in the fields and help reduce the chance of another tragedy happening in the future. what happened in then godsey has been scrutinized by a nonpartisan hard-hitting accountability review board, seven prior congressional investigations, multiple news organizations and, of course,
our law enforcement and intelligence agencies. today, i would like to share three observations about how we can learn from this tragedy and move forward as a nation. first, america must lead in a dangerous world. our diplomats must continue representing us in dangerous places. the state department sends people to more than 270 posts. chris siemens understood the diplomats must operate in many places that our soldiers do not. safety is far from guaranteed. in fact, he volunteered for just those assignments. he also understood we will never
prevent every act of terrorism or achieve perfect security. wheat, inevitably must accept a level of risk to protect our country and advance our interests and values. make no mistake, the risks are real. terrorists have killed more than 55 american diplomatic personnel since the 1970s and more than 100 contractors and locally employed staff. since 2001, there have been more than 100 attacks on u.s. diplomatic facilities around the world. if you asked our most experienced ambassadors, they will tell you, they cannot do their jobs for us from bunkers. it would compound the tragedy of benghazi if chris stevens death
and the death of the other three americans ended up undermining the work to which he and they devoted their lives. we have learned the hard way when america is absent, especially from unstable places. there are consequences. extremism takes root, aggressors seek to fulfill the vacuum. security everywhere is threatened, including here at home. that is why chris was in benghazi. that is why he has served previously in syria, egypt, saudi arabia and jerusalem during the second. nobody knew the dangers of libya better. a weak government. extremist groups. rampant instability. america had to be represented
there. at that little time. where the revolution had began. unrest could derail the fragile transition to democracy. and extremist gained a foothold. stabilizing the entire region. including egypt and tunisia. he also knew how urgent it was to ensure that the weapons had left strewn across the company including missiles that could knock an airplane out of the sky. did not fall into the wrong hands. the nearest israeli airport is just a days drive from the libyan border. above all, chris understood that most people in libya or anywhere
we just the extremist argument, that violence can ever be attacked. dignity or just this. that is what those thousands of libyans were saying after they learned of his death. they understood there was no substitute. going beyond the embassy walls and doing the hard work of building relationships. retrieved from the world is not an option. america cannot shrink from our responsibility to lead. that does not mean we should ever return to the go it alone policy of the past. a first choice rather than a last resort. quite the opposite. we need creative confident leadership.
leadership that integrates and balances the tools of diplomacy, development and the fence. at the heart of that effort, must be dedicated professionals like chris stevens and his colleagues who put their lives on the line for a country, our country, because they believe like i do that america is the greatest force the world has ever known. by second observation is this, we have a responsibility to provide our diplomats with the resources and support they need to do their jobs safely and effectively. after previous deadly attacks, leaders from both parties and both branches of government came together. determining what went wrong and how to fix it for the future. that is what happened during the reagan administration.
attacking our embassy. killing 63 people, including 17 americans. a later attack, attack our marines. killing so many more. those two attacks in beirut resulted in the deaths of 258 americans. it is what happened during the clinton administration when al qaeda on our embassies in kenya and tanzania. killing more than 200 people, wounding more than 2000 people. killing 12 americans. it is what happened during the bush administration. after 9/11. part of america's strengths is
we learned, we adapt, and we get stronger. after the benghazi attack, i asked ambassador, one of our most distinguished and longest-serving diplomats along with admiral mike mullen, the former chairman of the joint chiefs of staff appointed by president george w bush to lead and accountability review board. this is an institution that that congress set up after the attacks in beirut. there have been 18 dubious accountability review boards. only two have made their findings public. the ones following the attacks in east africa and the one following the attack in benghazi. the accountability review board did not pull a single punch.
they found systemic problems and management deficiency into state department heroes. the review board recommended 29 specific improvements. i pledge that by the time i left office, everyone would be on the way to implementation and they were. more marines were slated for deployment to high threat embassies, additional diplomatic agents were hired and trained. secretary kerry has continued this work. there is more to do. no administration can do it alone. congress has to be our partner as it has been after previous tragedies. for example, accountability review board and subsequent investigation have recommended improved training for our officers before they deployed to the field. efforts to establish a modern joint training center are being
held up by congress. men and women that serve our country deserve better. finally, there is one more observation i would like to share. i traveled to 112 countries as secretary of state. every time i did, i felt great pride and honor. representing the country that i love. we need leadership at home to match our leadership abroad. leadership that puts national security ahead of politics and ideology. our nation has a long history of bipartisan cooperation on foreign-policy and national security. it is not that we always agree, far from it, that we do come together when it counts. i worked with the senate of the
chairman's committee. i worked with the republican leader, senator mitch mcconnell to open up burma. i know it is possible to find common ground, because i have done it. we should debate on the basis of fact, not fear. we should resist demonstrating the patriotism or loyalties of those with whom we disagree. so i am here. despite all of the previous investigations and all the talk about partisan agendas. i am here to honor those that we lost and to do what i can to aid those that serve us still. my challenge to you, members of this committee is the same challenge i put myself. let's be worthy of the trust the american people have been sewed upon us.
they expect us to lead, to learn the right lessons. to rise above partisanship and to reach for statesmanship. that is what i try to do every day as secretary of state's and that is what i hope you all strive for here today and into the future. thank you. stuart: a calm and measured recitation by hillary clinton. occasional emotion towards the end there. her voice cracked on a couple of occasions. now we will begin the questioning from the committee. i believe that chairman gaudi will begin. >> our members have questions. i would just simply note that we do plan to ask all of the questions and whatever you can give to the answers without being short stripped would be much appreciated. i would recognize that chairman from illinois.
>> good morning, secretary clinton. a tick tock on libya memo. this was the day before their breath. tripoli. he titles it "secretary clinton's leadership on libya." the public face of the u.s. effort in libya. instrumental in tightening around the news. that did not come easy. you faced considerable opposition. i can pause while you are reading your notes. >> one thing at a time, congressman. >> that did not come easy, did it? the leadership role that i just mentioned. >> this is an issue that the committee has raised. it really boils down to why we
were in libya. why did the united states joined with our nato and european allies. to protect the people of libya against the murderous planning of the -- why did we take a role alongside our partners. there were a number of reasons for that. i think that it is important to remind the american people where we were at the time when the people of libya, like people across the region goes up to mandate freedom and democracy. threaten them with genocide. hunting them down like cockroaches. we were then approached by the great intensity, our closest allies in europe. people who felt very strongly, the french and the british, but others as well. it could not stand idly by and
permit that to happen. the unintended consequences that they worried about. they asked the united states to help. we get an anonymous amount of due diligence. also with those that are heading up with a transitional national council. we have experienced diplomats that were digging deep into what was happening in libya and what the possibilities were before we agreed to have very specific help to the european and arab efforts. not one american soldier on the ground. not one casualty. i think by many measures, the cooperation between nato and arab forces was quite remarkable. something we want to learn more lessons from.
>> secretary clinton, you were meeting career diplomats. going to produce negatives for intervention. march 9, 2011, what has become known as the options memo. then the executive secretary of the state department, one of the top diplomat said this, in the case of our diplomatic history, people seeking to drive higher power. all matter how just their cause. over the long term in the country. we welcome back to that in a minute. you overruled those diplomats. they report to you and you are the dutch chief diplomat of the united states. go ahead and read your notes, if you need to.
>> i have not done with my question, i am just giving you the courtesy of reading your notes. >> that is all right. >> they were pushing back. you overcame those objections. you had another big obstacle. that was the white house itself. senior voices that were opposed to military action. vice president biden. secretary gates. national security council and so forth. you persuaded president obama to intervene momentarily. >> congressman, i think it is important to point out that there were many in the state department that believed it was in the interests and values to protect the libyan people. to join with our allies and arab partners. the ambassador who had to be withdrawn from libya because of direct threats to his physical safety, but who knew libya very well. ambassador chris was a strong
advocate for doing what we could to assist the europeans and arabs. i think it is fair to say that there were concerns and there were varying opinions about what to do, how to do it and the like. at the end of the day, this was the president these vision. all of us, i did not savor it until i had done as i said, the due diligence. not just people within our government and within the government of all the other nations who were urging us to assist them, but also meeting in person with the gentleman who had assumed a lead role in the transitional national council. it is of course fair to say that this was a difficult situation. there were varying points of view about it. at the end of the day, in large measure, because of the strong appeal because of our european
allies, passing resolution urging that the united states and nato join with them, those were unprecedented requests. we did decide in recommending to the president that there was a way to do it, the president, i think, very clearly had a limited instruction about how to proceed and the first planes that flew where french planes. i think what the united dates provided was some of our unique capacity. the bulk of the work was done by europeans and arabs. >> i think that you are underselling yourself. you have the state department on board. you convince the president. you overcame biden. you had another obstacle then. that was the united nations. you were able to persuade the russians, of all things, to
sustain. had you not become successful at arguing back, the security council resolution 1973 would not have passed because the russians had the veto. you overcame that obstacle as well, isn't that right? >> it is right that after doing my due diligence and reviewing the various options and the potential consequences of pursuing each of them, i was in favor of the united states joining with our european allies and our arab partners. i was in favor of obtaining un security council support. i thought that that would provide greater legitimacy. the ambassador to the un was very successful in making the case to her colleagues. at the behalf and direction of the president, once he was presented with the very argument -- i have been in a number of situation room discussions.
i remember very well the intense conversation over whether or not to launch the navy seals on the compound. there was a split in the advisors around the president. eventually, the president makes the decision. i supported doing what we could to support our european partners in their efforts on a humanitarian basis, a strategic basis to prevent a launch and massacres. >> the arabs themselves. jake sullivan sent you an e-mail and he said this. i think you should call. it will be a painful 10 minutes, that you will be the one who delivered arab support. asking you to call the secretary-general of the arab league. you were able to quick overcome
opposition within the state department, you were able to persuade the president, you were able to persuade the united nations and international community, you made the call to the arabs and brought them home, you saw it, you drove it, you articulated it and you persuaded people. did i get that wrong? >> my job was to conduct the diplomacy. that consisted of a long series of meetings and phone calls. both here and our country and abroad. what they were saying and whether they meant it. we have heard sometimes before from countries saying the united states should go to this. when we say well, what would you do and support of us, there is not much coming forward. supporting them and what they saw as an action vital to their respective national security
interest, i wanted to be sure that they were going to bear the bulk of the load. in fact, they did. use our unique capacity, as i recall, monetary terms, slightly over $1 billion or less that what we spend in iraq in one day. in support of our allies. we asked our allies to do a lot for us, congressman. >> let me reclaim my time. it is expiring. you summed it up fast when you e-mailed your senior staff and you said of this interchange, you said it is good to remind ourselves and the rest of the world that this could not have happened without us. you are right, secretary. you were its chief architect. i said we would go back to the ambassador warning about using military for regime change. he said long-term things would not turn out very well. he was right. a disaster.
>> we will have more time, i am sure to talk about this. that is not a view that i will ascribe to. >> thank you. recognize the gentleman from maryland. i want to start with the number one question that republicans claim has not been answered in a previous investigations. yesterday, the chairman road an end he said this is his top unanswered question. about benghazi. it is, and i quote, why are people in libya and thank god the make so many requests for additional security and why are those requests denied? i'm giving you a chance to answer in a minute. secretary clinton, as you know, this exact question has been asked and answered many times.
let's start with the accountability review board. you, a moment ago, you talked about the admiral. you also pointed another great estate wished gentlemen, admiral mullen served under republican administrations and ambassador pickering, who i have a great amount of respect for, served 40 years, as you know, on our diplomatic corps, he served under george h. w. bush. he also served as un ambassador under, he also served under reagan. i was just wondering, i may go back to that question. why are people in libya and
benghazi making so many requests? i want you to comment. there seems to be an implementation, not independent. i think that the chairman said they were handpicked by you. that is done by law. would you comment on those two things, police. >> yes. i would be happy to. as i said in my opening statement, i take responsibility for what happened and benghazi. i felt a responsibility for all 70,000 people working at this eight department. i take that very seriously. as i said in respect to security request back when i testified in january 2013, those requests and issues related to security were rightly handled by the security professionals in the department. i did not see them, i did not approve them, i did not deny
them. ambassador pickering and admiral mullen make this case very clearly in their testimony before your committee and in their comments. these issues would not ordinarily come before the secretary of state and they did not in this case. as secretary, secretary, i was committed to taking aggressive measures to ensure that our personnel and facilities were as safe as possible. certainly, when the nonpartisan critical report from the accountable review board came forward, i took it very seriously. that is why i embraced all of their recommendations and created a new position within the diplomatic security bureau, specifically to evaluate high risk posts. i think it is important, also, to mention, congressman, the
diplomatic security professionals who were reviewing these requests along with those who are serving in war zones and hot spots around the world have great expertise and experience in keeping people safe. if you go on they're the ones that plan your trip to keep you safe, that's what they did for me, but most importantly that's what they do every day for everybody who serves our country as a diplomat or development professional. and i was not going to second-guess them. i was not going to substitute my judgment, which is not based on experience that they have in keeping people safe for theirs. and the changes that were recommended by the accountability review board are ones that we thought made sense and began quickly to implement >> now, the arb after
conducting, madam secretary more than 100 interviews identify specific employee state department whom denied these requests. it was deputy assistant secretary of the bureau diplomatic security charlene lam and, again, she did come before the oversight committee. the arb was very critical of her. it was also critical of her two supervisors, principle deputy assistant, assistant secretary, and the assistant secretary for the diplomatic committee. the diplomatic found the same answer as the arb. it found that this official denied these requests, and it found no evidence that you approved or denied them. the problem is that republicans just keep asking the same question over and over again and pretend they don't know the answer. in 2013 the republican
chairman of five house committees issued a report falsely accusing you personally of denying these requests over your signature. the next day, the next day the chairman of the oversight committee darrell went on national television and confused you of the same thing. can we play that clip, please? >> secretary of state was just wrong. she said she did not participate in this and yet only a few months before the attack she outright denied security in her signature april 2012. >> do you remember that allegation, madam secretary? hillary: i do. >> well, when they examined this claim, they gave it four
pinokios, it turns out the republicans had a copy of that but they didn't tell the american people that your so-called signature was just a stamp that appeared on millions of cables from the state department every single year. is that right? hillary: that's correct. >> now, madam secretary, my goal has always been to gather facts and gather the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, last year i asked scott to answer database and this specific issue was answered thoroughly. on monday we put out another report and this issue was addressed yet again. but the republicans want to keep this attack going so they are now trying to argue that we have new e-mails that raise new questions. the truth is that we have reviewed these e-mails, and
we -- they don't critic previous conclusions, they confirm them. they corroborate them. we've reviewed e-mails from ambassadors, and they show that he asked for more security. nothing we have obtained, not the new interviews or the new e-mails changes the basic facts we have known for three years. secretary clinton, let me ask one final question and please take as much time as you want to answer this. there's no evidence to support the claims that you personally rejected security requests. so some regard that since you knew the danger was increasing in libya, you should have been in there making detailed decisions about whether there should be five, seven, or nine security officers at any given post. madam secretary, i know you have answered over and again, you might just want to
elaborate and -- i have a minimum and seven seconds. hillary: well, thank you, congressman. i think there are has been some confusion, and i welcome the opportunity to try to clarify it to the best of my ability with respect to as you rightly point out the claims that were made about the cables. i think you have explained the fact, which is that it's the long-standing tradition of the state department for cables from around the world to be sent to and sent from the state department under the signature over the signature of the secretary of state. it's a stamp. it's just part of the tradition. there are millions of them as you point out. they are sorted through and directed to the appropriate personnel, very few of them ever come to my attention. none of them with respect to security regarding benghazi did. then the other point, which i thank you for raising so that
perhaps i can speak to this one as well. there is a -- there is of course information that we were obtaining about the increasingly dangerous environment in libya. across the country but in particular in eastern libya. and we were aware of that, and we were certainly taking that into account. there was no actionable intelligence on september 11th or even before that date about any kind of planned attack on our compound in benghazi. and there were a lot of debates apparently that went on within the security professionals about what to provide because they did have to prioritize the accountability review board pointed that out. the state department has historically and certainly before this terrible incident
not had had amount of money that we thought would be necessary to do what was required to protect everyone. so of course there had to be priorities and that was something that the security professionals dealt with. i think that both admiral mullen and ambassador made it clear that they thought the high threat post should move to a higher level of scrutiny, and we had immediately moved to move that. >> thank you. >> and now recognize -- stuart: now we are one hour and seven minutes into this hearing. it is probably going to go on a long time. we have expert from, first of all, dan henninger watching this from the wall street journal. dan, your assessment of hillary clinton's performance this far. >> i would say her performance this far makes it clear that she's a highly skilled bureaucrat. she has mastered the art of
enveloping any expert detail, process, and complexity, come more or less dissipates responsibility out into the ethers. the second thing we've learned is some suggestion where her campaign is going. she's trying to align herself with the difficulties of the reagan years, the clinton years, and then she made commitment to a bipartisan policy which we have so far. stuart: brent is with us, you usually follow the media and what they're talking about and how they're covering the subject. cover, please, how hillary clinton is responding to the questioning thus far. how is she doing? >> well, i think she's doing well, especially if you look from the eyes of the media in that she's giving no answers and any answer she's giving now, there's not enough money, somebody else signed it, it's just my stamp, she's not
taking responsibility for anything that went on there and, by the way, the questions aren't being asked yet. there's so many questions that hopefully they're going to be asking. why the lie about the video? who's responsible for the lie? why was security not given to ambassador stevens? why was security not provided when he asked for it? when him and his men were dying? why can't she give us an answer? why the e-mail problem isn't why the secrecy? why has this been going on since september of 2012 and the questions question's are still being asked? . stuart: well, i'm going to go back congresswoman is asking hillary clinton about e-mails, and she has a pile stacked in front of her. i'm going to listen to this. >> just a few weeks ago they show that in march of '11 you had chris stevens join us in paris where you were meeting with the leader of the libya revolution. and in paris that's when you talked about chris stevens go
into benghazi, i believe in april 5th, 2011 on that greek cargo ship. how long was he expected to stay? what were chris stevens' orders from you about libya and about benghazi specifically? hillary: chris stevens was asked to go to benghazi to do reconnaissance to try to figure out who were the leaders of the insurgency who were based in benghazi, what their goals were, what they understood, what happened if they were successful. it was as i said the hard nose 21st century diplomacy that is rooted in the old fashion necessary work of building relationships and gathering information. >> how long was he anticipated to stay in benghazi? do you recall? hillary: there -- it was open ended. we were in discussing it with him unsure as to how productive it would be.
whether it would be appropriate for him to stay for a long time or short time. that was very much going to depend upon chris' own assessment. we knew we were sending someone who understood the area, who understood the language, who understood a lot of the personalities because of the historical study that he used to love to do, and we were going to be guided by what he decided. >> i'd like to draw your attention to an e-mail. it's an e-mail found at tab one. it's an op center e-mail that was forwarded to you from abdeem on sunday, march 27th that says at the bottom of the e-mail, so the current game plan is for mr. stevens to move no later to wednesday to benghazi but the bottom of the e-mail says the goal of this one-day trip is for him to lay the ground work of a stay of up to 30 days. so just refresh that
recollection, i believe initially the goal was to go in for 30 days. were you personally briefed on his security plan prior to him going into libya? at that time if i'm not mistaken the forces were still battling the rebels; correct? hillary: that's right. >> so what were -- were you personally briefed before you sent mr. stevens into benghazi? hillary: i was personally told by the officials who were in the state department who were immediately above chris who were making the plans for him to go in that it was going to be expeditionary diplomacy. it was going to require him to make a lot of judgments on the ground about what he could accomplish and including where it would be safe for him to be and how long for him to stay, and i think the initial decision was, you know, up to 30 days in reassess but it
could have been ten days, it could have been 60 days depending on what he found and what he reported back to us. >> and possibly what was determined to be the danger. who were the officials. hillary: well, there were a number of officials. >> that were advising you on the security specifically. hillary: well, with respect to the security, this was a particular concern of the assistant secretary for the bureau in which chris worked -- >> i'm sorry what was that person's name. hillary: assistant director jeff feldman. >> thank you. hillary: and also a concern for secretary of diplomatic security as well as other officials within the state department. >> and -- hillary: and i think it's fair to say this was a risky undertaking, and it was something -- as i said in my opening statement, more of the way diplomacy was practiced in
the 19th century because we didn't have internet, you would sent convoys into places and not hear from them for maybe months. this was obviously not that kind but it was not that different in degree from what we had done before, and it was a risky undertaking and one which chris volunteered for and was anxious to undertake. >> and it was so risky, i would like to pull up another e-mail from the op center that was forwarded to you from ms. aberdeen on sunday april 10th, so he had been there about five days, and it indicates that the situation had worsened to the point where stevens is considering departing from benghazi. this is within five days of them going in. were you aware of that concern within the first five days that he had gone in and did anyone share that with you? hillary: we were really counting on chris to guide us and give us the information from the ground. we had no other sources. you know, there was no american
outpost. there was no, you know, american military presence. eventually other americans representing different agencies were able to get into benghazi and begin to do the same work, but they of course couldn't do that work overtly, which is why we wanted a diplomat who could be publicly meeting with people to try to get the best assessment. but it was always going to be a constant risk, and we knew that. >> and so let me go back to the risk in 2011 because there was a lot ofcation, again, once again from your senior staff, from the state department to you or from you in 2011. and, in fact, that is when ca khadafy fell in 2011, but then when we go to 2012, chris, benghazi, stevens, the staff, they seem to fall off the radar in 2012 and the situation is getting much worse in 2012.
it was getting much worse and let me just share for you in your records that we have reviewed, there is not one e-mail to you or from you in 2012 when an explosive device went off at our compound in april. there's not a single e-mail in your records about that explosive device. so my question is this was a very important mission in 2011. you sent chris stevens there but yet when our compound is attacked in 2012, what kind of culture was created in the state department that your folks couldn't tell you in an e-mail about a bomb in april of 2012? hillary: well, congresswoman, i did not conduct most of the business that i did on behalf of our country on e-mail. i conducted it in meetings, i read massive amounts of memos, great deal of classified information, i made a lot of secure phone calls, i was in and out of the white house all
the time. there were a lot of things that happened that i was aware of and that i was reacting to. if you were to be in my office in the state department, i didn't have a computer, i did not do the vast majority of my work on e-mail, and i bet there's a lot of e-mails in there too. i don't want you to have a mistaken impression about what i did and how i did it. most of my work was not done on e-mails with my closest aids, with officials in the state department, officials with the rest of the government as well as the white house and people around the world. >> and thank you for sharing that because i'm sure it's not done on e-mails, madam secretary, and there are meetings and there are discussions. so then when our compound took a secretary attack on june 6th when a bomb blew a wall through the compound then, no e-mails, no e-mails at all, but i am interested in knowing who were you meeting with?
who were you huddling with? how were you informed about those things? because there's nothing in the e-mails that talks about two significant attacks on our compounds in 2012. there's a lot of information in 2011 about issues and security posture and yet nothing in 2012. hillary: well, i would be happy to explain. every morning when i arrived at the state department, usually between 8:00 and 8:30, i had a personal one-on-one briefing from the representative of the central intelligence agency who shared with me the highest level of classified information that i was to be aware of on a daily basis. i then had a meeting with the top officials of the state department every day that i was in town. that's where a lot of information, including threats and attacks on our facilities was shared. i also had a weekly meeting every monday with all of the officials, the assistant secretaries and others so that
i could brought up to date on any issue they were concerned about. during the day i received hundreds of pages of memos, many of them classified, some of them so top secret that they were brought in my office in a locked briefcase that i had to read and immediately return to the courier, and i was constantly at the white house in the situation room meeting with the national security advisor and others. i would also be meeting with officials in the state department, foreign officials, and others. so there was a lot going on during every day. i did not e-mail during the day. and except on rare occasions when i was able to. but i didn't conduct the business that i did primarily on e-mail. that is not how i gathered information, assessed information, asked the hard questions of the people that i worked with. >> it appears that leaving benghazi with respect to all of that danger, leaving benghazi was not an option in 2012, and i yield back. hillary: if i could just
quickly respond. there was never a recommendation from any intelligence official in our government, from any official in the state department or from any other person with knowledge of our presence in benghazi to shut down benghazi, even after the two attacks that the compound suffered. and perhaps, you know, you would wonder why, but i can tell you it was thought that the mission in benghazi in conjunction with the cia mission was vital to our national interest. >> yields back to briefly recommendation mr. duckworth. >> thank you very much i just want to clarify when i was asked secretary clinton a question a moment ago, i mentioned an e-mail that had gone from ambassador chris stevens what i meant to say was cable. and i just want to make sure the record was clear. >> the record will reflect that.
ms. duckworth. stuart: we've been watching this very closely. as have you in our audience. monica is with me, also watching very closely. monica, hillary clinton started out smiling, calm, i suspect she just became a little testy, would you say that? >> she has had a quite good tone throughout this entire proceeding so far. this is the tone we saw during the first democratic debate as well where she's composed, rely rehearsed, practiced, that has been coached to hillary clinton. i think now with this line of questioning because what the republicans are doing is building a timeline of events in terms of security leading up to that night. i would have liked them to come out of the box. stuart: look, they started out with the military attack on khadafy, who was responsible for that, it suggested this, hillary clinton. who sent ambassador stevens to libya? hillary clinton. they established that. they're going through the timeline. they have not gotten to the attack yet at this point, not
even close. >> but they will. they're building a case. keep this in mind that they have now questioned all of the people around hillary clinton, her chief of staff, cheryl mills, her top aid, cindy who she brought in directed to not hire him she hired through the clinton foundation. they have questioned these people under oath so she's surrounded by their testimony, and i'm impatient, i want them to get right to the point and also want to see more precise questioning, ye yes or no questions rather than these open ended questions. stuart: but the questions by the republicans have been coordinated, they started on the timeline, started at the beginning, the second republican goes to the next stage of what happened in libya, the next stage will be the next republican questioner. this is going to be a very long day because each of these questions i believe could our producer in washington, they've got four attempts,
4'10" minute blocks, each one of them. >> madam secretary talked about open ended diplomacy, if that's the case, where was the security? it seems that's how the republicans are laying the case against hillary clinton. stuart: there's two things going on here. the republicans want to catch her out factually. ashley: uh-huh. stuart: and hillary clinton wants to project an image o of -- she's present, calm, cool, and in charge. so it's image versus the facts and the republicans on the factual side and the image guys on the democrat size. >> yes, you're right. there's two tracks going on here. the legal governmental track and then there's the trillion tract. and with joe biden all of this race, she is now the leading contender as she has been but with him on you out, the field is essentially clear. ashley: look at this image with her with her head in her hand. that looks very, like, okay. come on. >> well, it looks like she is -- stuart: right now -- >> doing them a big favor by being there. stuart: right now the democrat is asking a very, very long
question, in fact, i don't think we've asked the end of the question yet. the democrats very clearly in hillary's camp here, very supportive of her. trying to make this as if it's a republican political theater. ashley: yeah,. stuart: political attack entirely so. ashley: witch hunt. stuart: so where are we now? it's going to be a long day. >> and questions to come. what was she doing that night? what was the content of that phone call she had with the president that night, who came up with the fiction of the video and why? why did she lie to the faces of the family of the dead and blame it on the video? so much more. stuart: andrew peek is with us, former army intelligence officer, i know you've been watching, so far there's been no discussion on the actual attack on the compound on benghazi at all. it's going to come, though, isn't it? that's probably scheduled for after lunch maybe? it's coming. >> that's absolutely right. i never thought i would say this but trey gowdy is doing a great job and winning the tone
battle with hillary clinton as well. not only his open statement was professional and cool and almost more grown up than a former secretary of state but this thing is so well organized that as you noted it is moving chronologically closer and closer to the attack that i suspect we get into the really nitty-gritty about, yeah, midday. that sounds about right. stuart: what you want to know, andrew, is why didn't we rescue the ambassador? he called for help, he didn't get help. that's what you want to know about, isn't it? >> that is what i would like to know and, unfortunately, you know, i suspect that this is not going to come out; right? i mean unless hillary clinton makes an unbelievably egregious bloomer, there's no way she's going to say, well, they requested help and then i slammed the phone down. stuart: but supposing trey gowdy has the evidence to say, look, the request -- the request for help is here. it went to this person here, and you -- i mean if he comes
out with that kind of specific, you know, here was the cry for help but he didn't get it. then that changes things, doesn't it? >> it does. what struck me about her first hour of testimony was that at least on the broad libya policy questions, she kicked the can to the president; right? you heard her saying, well, the president has the last decision. so i suspect when that question comes down, she may well kick it to dod or the white house directly. and i think as the hearing goes on, it would be a great thing to try to widen that gap a little bit and go okay. so you had no responsibility here. it's just the military, just the white house, you know? just ben roads over there making a call here and there to say, no, no help's coming. stuart: i think the republicans have made an attempt to lay responsibility on hillary clinton. you were driving the attack in libya that got rid of khadafy. >> she was the secretary of state. the buck has to stop with her. remember libya was her
portfolio. obama allowed her control over libya policy, this was her baby from start to end. stuart: but the republicans are saying, yes, this is your responsibility. you drove this. >> and she said it's ultimately the president. stuart: and she's backing up, putting distance between herself and the president that was his decision. although that's what she was in favor of. >> it's interesting in 2011 the e-mails that's a touch point for her and sharing national security with an outsider. stuart: andrew, i know you disagreed with something we just said. what's your point? >> no. i think that's absolutely right actually. you know, i think she is kicking this to the white house; right? and i don't really know -- i mean, unfortunately, at that point it becomes a battle about tone; right? i mean it's -- it is exactly this dual track thing we were talking about earlier. stuart: congresswoman democrat from california, i believe you're with us, ma'am.
you've been watching this, we're saying that hillary clinton has given a solid performance, calm and cool to start with. now under some republican questioning looks a tad rattled, would you agree with that at all? >> well, i just stepped into your studio, so i haven't been really watching and listening intently to really answer your question adequately. stuart: your position is along with other democrats that essentially this is a political attack that you're out to get -- the republicans are out to get hillary clinton. is that your position? that's where you're coming from? >> well, in my observation, i'm not on the committee so i've observed somewhat from a distance is that it has not conducted itself well. it's a sham.
and the republicans majority leader in a moment of accidentally telling the truth really spilled the beans in telling the truth. stuart: were you referring to kevin mccarthy at that point. >> yes. uh-huh, yes. stuart: well, the opening statement for trey gowdy who is the chair of this committee is saying, look, we're going after the truth. we want the facts. he want to great lengths to say there have been many investigations up until this point of the benghazi incident but none of them were serious investigations. trey gowdy is saying, look, factually that what we're going after here. we want the facts on the death of four americans. essaying this is nothing to do with politics. >> well, i think that that's -- he's saying all of that in the aftermath to suggest that ambassador and that and the team that comprised that commission
didn't look for facts. i think really it says something about the chairman. so i would really disregard that. i think the sooner this committee comes to a conclusion and folds up, the better off we're going to be because it's been a fishing expedition that hasn't come up with anything, and i think it's unfortunate because the congress is a highest legislative body of our country, and i think the american people deserve better than this. stuart: well, we shall see because it's going to be a long day. and there will be questions more pointed i suspect as this day goes by. congresswoman anna -- pronounce it. i don't want to get it wrong. >> he shue. stuart: i'm sorry i got it wrong. i'm very sorry. please come back again.
all right. let's get back to the hearing now. hillary clinton is smiling, i think this is a question from a democrat, i suspect, i don't know. let's listen in. hillary: i agree with you completely, congresswoman. it's a very successful roadmap as to where we should be going, and i'm the platoon leader, something that you took into account. so when i came to the state department, there had never been anything like this done, there was no roadmap and the usa would come up and fight for money that they could get out of congress, no matter who was in charge of the congress every single year. it's 1% of the entire budget, and it was very difficult to explain effectively what it is we were trying to achieve. so i did institute the first ever quad diplomacy review. and one of the key questions we were addressing is what is this balance between risk and reward when it comes to our
diplomats and development professionals? because the first thing i heard when i got to the state department were complaints from a lot of our most experienced diplomats that they were being hamstrung that the requirements were so intense that they were basically unable to do their jobs. and of course from the security professionals who were all part of this what we call the qddr, they were saying we don't want you to go beyond the fence. we can't protect you in all of these dangerous circumstances. how you balance that -- and it is a constant balancing of risk and reward in terms of what we hope our diplomats and development professionals accountable of. so it's been done twice now. secretary kerry in his tenure has done the second qddr, and i hope it becomes as important and as much of a roadmap as the qdr has for our defense department and military services. >> thank you i'm out of time.
>> the chair would now recognize general lady from alabama. >> good morning. hillary: good morning. >> my colleagues have focused on the relationship with the ambassador chris stevens and i couldn't sent him into benghazi in 2011 as part of a broader initiative. but it's not so clear from everything that we've reviewed that you had a vision in benghazi going forward in 2012 and beyond. it appears that there was confusion and uncertainty within your own department about libya. and quite frankly, secretary clinton, it appears you were a large cause of that uncertainty and we've seen all the day to day updates and concern in earlier 2 i've heard what you said to my colleague mrs. brooks and i'll get to that in a minute. but showing that libya and for that matter benghazi belonged to you in 2011, it was yours
so to speak and from your record we saw a drop of interest in libya and benghazi in 2012. not only do the records show your drop of interest in benghazi, it was even noticed by your own staff. i want to point this out -- say this because i want to point you to an e-mail in early february 2012 between two staffers at your libya desk that says you didn't know whether we still even had a presence in benghazi. let's not use my words, let's use there's, this can be found at tab 31. the e-mail says, and it's dated february 9, 2012. one writes to the other about an encounter that she had with you quote also the secretary asked last week if we still have a presence in benghazi. i think she would be upset to
hear "yes" we do but because we don't have enough security, they are on lock down end quote. and i say that this is very troubling to me because it raises several issues that i'd like to ask you about. i'm struck by the first part quote the secretary asked last week if we still have a presence in benghazi. now, you pointed out to mrs. brooks and her last line of questioning based upon the e-mail stacks here that you engage in a lot of conversations and briefings, so i'm assuming that this conversation with this member of your staff took place in one of those briefings but then she sent this e-mail asking about this. so how can this be that two of your staffers are e-mailing about whether or not you even knew that we had a presence in benghazi in 2012 with all of your interest in libya in
2011, including your trip in october of 2011 in that months later we come to find out that you didn't even know if we had a presence there. stuart: i have to ask, that was the longest question and frankly i thought that was rather rambling, monica. >> well, you're correct about that. with all do due respect to the congresswoman, and i understand the republicans are probably trying to build a timeline, and trying to build a case and do it in a way, you've got to go after her with precise prosecutorial questions and a yes or no format. is this true, mrs. clinton, yes or no? with these open ended questions you're allowing her reign to filibuster her way through this. stuart: i have to tell you. i don't know what that question was all about that was just asked by republican -- i don't know what the question was. i don't. but i do know that elijah cummings introduced the sound
bite. roll the tape and then darrell made an accusation. he says to hillary clinton is that accurate? she says "no." and away you go. i mean it was clean cut, it was obvious. a complete difference between the republicans and democrats. >> well, the democrats know what they're doing certainly and they're there to protect mrs. clinton but the republicans have had a long time to prepare for this and make their questioning strategic and precise and i have not seen that so far. maybe there's a method to their madness, maybe when she's tired halfway through the day they'll come with guns blazing but i'm not certain. stuart: we're an hour and a half so far and it looks to me it's going to go all day. i don't see any way around that. producer in washington says each member of the panel gets four goes at questioning. liz: yeah,. stuart: then minutes each. i think there are 12 or 13 people on the panel, democrats and republicans combined, 13 or 14, you add all of this up, they all get ten minutes four
times. >> could be eight hours. stuart: we could be in darkness by the time this thing is over. maybe that's the strategy for the republicans to keep it going, build the timeline and then at the end of the day or towards the end of the day you get to the benghazi. liz: and bring up the heavy hitters that monica is talking about. stuart: maybe. we shall see. meanwhile back to the hearing room. >> e-mail says something -- hillary: well, i can't speak to that, i can just tell you what i was doing. >> sure. but this is your staff. hillary: what was it -- >> if they had this conversation with you, why would they make it up? but i want to move on. this e-mail, you know, makes me wonder about benghazi because they're asking -- they're saying you asked if we still had a presence but we look at the second part of the e-mail quote and i think she would be upset to hear, yes, we do -- >> i. congresswoman, i'm sorry.
i have no recollection of or no knowledge of -- hillary: please turn to tab 31. >> well, i trust that i have read it, but i also tell you that we had a presence in benghazi. we had members of the administration in congress visiting benghazi. so of course i knew we had a presence in benghazi. i can't speak to what someone either heard or miss heard. but i think what's important, and i said the under lying point of your question is what were we doing? and that's what i'm trying to explain to you about what we were doing. >> i want to get to the secretary part of the e-mail that suggests that we were in lock down that you would have been upset to know, yes, heard the first part of your answer but that we were in lock down and you said on numerous occasions, including in your opening statements point number one america must lead and we must represent in dangerous places. quote they can't do our jobs
for us in bunkers. and essentially what we know is that there weren't the required number of security on the ground in order for the individual to even move about the country to provide you with what you have reiterated on numerous occasions as being very important at that time, which is political reporting. hillary: well, could you tell me who is -- who are the names on this e-mail that you're talking about. >> sure. to show you tab 31, you have a book in front of. it is alice abdullah and -- i'm going to pronounce it wrong. ninya -- hillary: they were not on my staff. i'm not in any way, you know, contradicting what they think they heard or what they heard somebody say but -- >> you tell me who they were if they were not on my staff. hillary: they were in the state department along with thousands of other people. they were not part of the secretary staff. but i get what you're saying, congresswoman, and i want to
focus on this. i think it's a fair and important question. the facility in benghazi was a temporary facility. there had been no decision made as to whether or not it would be permanent. it was not even a consulate. obviously much of the work that we were doing was going through the embassy. the -- there was a -- there was a very vigorous discussion on the part of the people who were responsible for making a recommendation about benghazi as to what form of consulate, what form of facility it should be. chris stevens believed that it should be a form consulate but that was something that had to be worked out and there had not yet been a decision at the time that the attack took place. so it was not a permanent facility. and, you know, there were a number of questions that people were asking about whether it could or should be.
>> well, i want to drill down on the issue and i want to say it's frustrating for us here on the panel hear about you take the responsibility you took for all 70,000 plus employees and yet i read you a conversation between two of those employees and you're brushing it off as not being any knowledge. hillary: i'm just saying i have no recollection of it and it doesn't correspond with the facts about what we were doing on a regular basis. >> well, i've got a few seconds left. in 2011 during the revolution then stevens had ten agents with him on the ground in benghazi and then we know in 2012 where the security situation had deteriorated even further, there were only three agents assigned to benghazi. again, can't even move anybody off of the facility to do the necessary political reporting, and my
question is, you know, why did you not acknowledge because of your interest in 2011 the importance of having those security officers there to do what was so important to you, which was the political reporting then in 2011 and when an ambassador was there three, and he brought two of his own the night of the attack, which would meet the requisite five but there was only three there at any given time. so if you could address that, i'm short on time. >> well, he did have five with him on september 11th. >> well, he brought two with him. hillary: right but the point was they were personal security so they were there to secure him. so, yes, he did bring two and when he got there, he had five and on september 10th he went into benghazi, he went to a
luncheon with leading civic leaders, business leaders in benghazi. so he felt very comfortable it was his decision. ambassadors do not have to seek permission from the state department to travel around the country that they are assigned to. he decided to go to benghazi by taking two security officers with him and having three there. he had the requisite five that had been the subject of discussion between the embassy and the state department security professionals. i'm not going to in any way suggest that he or the embassy got everything they requested. we know that they didn't -- stuart: i do want to follow up on this questioning. it doesn't appear to be sharp edged or penetrating and doesn't seem to have gotten any far in getting any point
of view. >> that's through, and it's playing into secretary clinton's hands because it allows her wide birth to answer whatever question she wants and then just eat up her time with filibustering with whatever she wants to say. i mean she has had a couple of moments where you see she's irritated by the line of questioning, gritting her teeth but so far remained relatively composed, we'll see if that holds through through the rest of the day. stuart: now, as we said earlier, each of the members of the panel have four occasions where they ask the questions for ten minutes each. four times. is it possible towards the end of the afternoon some of the panel members will see their time to trey gowdy, who is trained as a prosecutor. this man is a lawyer. he knows what he's doing. could they see their time to him so he could conduct the kind of interview that you're expecting. >> they could. after all, stuart, they're
politicians and they love facetime on camera and the whole nation is watching this hearing, so it remains to be seen but it is in trey gowdy's hands, he is an experienced prosecutor. remember as a young lawyer on the watergate committee moving to impeach president nixon, she wanted to deny president clinton an attorney, she knows exactly what she is doing and they have to have people up here cross-examining her and so far i haven't seen it. stuart: former intelligence officer, they're not even close and going through this chronologically and it would be a long time before they get to the attack on the compound and the military activity there, wouldn't it? >> no. it totally will. and worse than that is we're totally lost in the weeds here. not only are the questions not pointed and not liciting answers, the average person
who watches this says okay. i don't care. it gets away from the three main weaknesses which is the libya policy overall is a disaster, which we've touched on already. two that apparently during 2012 hillary clinton paid no attention to benghazi at all; right? we have no documentary record really that this lead policy priority came to her desk in any way form that at least was written down. and thirdly, you know, that after the attack the administration essentially for political reasons essentially misrepresented what happened. so apart from that, we're kind of lost in the weeds on the minute -- stuart: very much so. very much so. we are indeed. ashley, what have you got? ashley: very earlier in the testimony hillary clinton said there was no registration to leave benghazi. not true. august 2012 classified cable, this was first obtained by fox news, shows there was an emergency meeting in benghazi between the state department and the cia. the cable reported that the
consulate could not withstand a coordinated assault and they were at least ten islamist militias there. stuart: why don't the republican questioners know that kind of thing to catch or to bring up an parent contradiction in hillary's earlier statement. liz: that's just months prior to the attack. stuart: that's correct. that's right. >> and, by the way, i know somebody who knew khadafy's sons or one of his sons and he said for years benghazi was a activity, a muslim brotherhood. for months. so even when khadafy he was in power, he would have to go into benghazi with this full armed detail because it was so dangerous even under his reign. so this was not a giant mystery here. stuart: i think we're getting lost in the weeds. ashley: a little bit. stuart: i think everybody is lost in the weeds here and that's giving hillary clinton an opportunity to run out the clock on many of the questions and still -- look pretty good, as a matter of fact. that's, in my opinion. >> so far.
stuart: let's get back to this. i'm not sure who is questioning right now. i think it's a republican. let's listen in. >> the four brave americans who were killed, why they were killed and focus on benghazi. and we have not. i mean i found his questions to be the most interesting like he was having ring for the president with episode to debate you on libya policy why we got in there in the first place and that's debatable, and i think you will argue that quite well. but that's not about the attack on benghazi. that's not about what we could have done in benghazi to better protect them. so, again, i think we've seen that this committee is focused on you. and i'm, you know, the reigning member of the armed services committee, i don't see the department of defense here, i don't see the cia here, there were many, many other agencies involved in this and yet yours has been the one that they have obsessively focused on, and i think that's a shame for a whole lot of reasons but one thing, you know, this committee as it has been in the news the last several
weeks has been yet one more step in denigrating this institution, and i happen to think this institution needs more support, not less. so i wish we would stop doing that. and i, you know, you mentioned beirut, and that was the first thought that occurred to me when this happened. was that a democratic congress at the time did a fair and quick investigation of what was an unspeakable tragedy, two separate suicide bombings four months apart and there was clearly inadequate security. but the focus there was not on partisanship, not on embarrassing the reagan administration but to better figure out what happened. now, i want to and questions what i think is the essential issue and that is how do we have the presence in the world that you described is what is an increasingly dangerous world. because i've traveled to pakistan and afghanistan and yemen and other places.
i'm consistently amazed by the willingness of our diplomatic core to put their lives at risk. skand i wonder how do you balance that decision? because frankly what i've heard more often from that diplomatic core is that they chafe at the restrictions. i remember vividly being in the shower, which is, you know -- i didn't like the ride from the airport to the embassy which was ten minutes and we were there for i don't know a few hours and then out. you know, the state department personnel, they lived there and went out amongst the community. how do you try and strike that balance of, you know, being present at the same time meeting the security obligations and then most importantly who drives that decision? because it seems to me in most instances it is driven by the diplomatic core there. if they take risks, it's because they've decided to do it. they're there. they know the security situation certainly better than the secretary and better
than most everybody e but what is the proper way to strike that balance going forward to protect our personnel and still fulfill their mission? >> congressman, i think that is the most important question, and i would certainly welcome congressional discussion and debate about this because it's what we tried to do going back to congresswoman duckworth's question, what we tried to begin to do in the diplomacy and the development to review the first one that was ever done because that's exactly what we were facing. you know, we have had diplomats in development to professionals in war zones now for a number of years. we've had them in places that are incredibly unstable and dangerous because of on going conflicts. it is i think the bias of the diplomacy core that they be there because that's what they signed up for and they know if america is not represented,
then we leave a vacuum, and we lose our eyes and our ears about what people are thinking and doing -- stuart: at risk of appearing to be highly partisan, i would have to say that that last question was the softest of softballs that one could imagine. if that wasn't a setup for horribly marriage with a campaign scenario, a campaign speech, which is what she's doing, that was it. >> a level of worklife balance question. stuart: what was the question about actually? you know? because i don't. ashley: he was asking how do you measure the risks to diplomatic core face, you know, with -- do you pet them in a bunker or let them out in the community? how do you figure that out. stuart: now, if i was a democrat and i was the question, that's the precisely the committee i would ask. >> all the democrats on the committee are there for one reason and that's to protect hillary clinton as nominee for
president. stuart: so far they're doing a much better job for the republicans who are supposed to be going after the facts surrounding the death of four going to see americans. >> that's true also but when you look back at four hearings whether it's watergate or iran, you see republicans who are authentically interested in getting to the truth despite the fact it was a republican president. this -- we are in such a highly partisan era now that the democrats are only interested in protecting her. including the ambassador and all they're interested in -- liz: this is a different situation right now than what happened in benghazi. the state department did pick who was going to be on the accountability review board, trey gowdy said basically the people who did the handpicking were involved and reviewing in deny request for security in benghazi. so the committees that hillary clinton cited earlier rather they basically he says were stonewalled that did not have access to witnesses and documents and he still feels he's being stonewalled to this
day. stuart: i just feel that the fireworks come later on this afternoon. ashley: , yes. stuart: when the professionals get into this. the professionals who know how to ask the questions. maybe that's the republican game plan. but at the moment they're just going through a timeline and have not even arrived anywhere close to the actual attack on what happened to those four americans. and in the aftermath too. not even close to that at this point. and to we're almost two hours into this. what is it almost 12:00 noon? yeah, almost two hours into this. have the republicans blown it? >> well, so far it doesn't look too promising. i'm not willing to go that far yet but i get back to my earlier point that they have already interrogated under oath everybody around hillary. it is possible that they're setting a foundation perhaps for perjury trap or align the testimony and see if they all line up and if they can catch her in a lie or un, then they can go after her. liz: well, we can't get an answer of why the americans
were there, why were they there after khadafy was supposedly killed. >> that's the quickly question of what the administration was actually covering up post the attack. what was the cia really doing in benghazi? . stuart: weren't they arranging a swap of weapons, taking them off one group and giving them to another? >> well, it has been reporting that the administration under hillary clinton's supervision transferred weapons to the antikhadafy rebels, which were essentially muslim brotherhood. and prior to the benghazi attack, stevens was sent there to mop up those weapons in order to divert them to the syrian rebels. well, a lot of those weapons ended up in the hands of isis. this is a huge catastrophic failure that has ended in multiple deaths and yet i see a lot of the republicans wasting a lot of time on nonsense today. stuart: i have learned nothing so far. every word except what i've been talking on the committee, i haven't learned anything
that i didn't know already. nothing new whatsoever. in fact, i've been snowed under in this avalanche of weedy material the republicans don't seem to organize properly. there was no bang bang bang straight forward question. yes no. did you do this? did you do that? >> and what they could have done is have trey gowdy give his opening statement and then have the opening guy come out, boom, set up that night. yes or no questions about that night and then have other questioners go back and establish the timeline. hit her right out of the box. but republicans generally don't think strategically. stuart: they are right out of the box. what is this?
liz: i said about rattle her first what happened that night and why was there a failure to provide security. ashley: trey gowdy's opening statement i thought it was excellent, it was clear, laid it out,. liz: it was good. ashley: and i thought, boy, this is going to be good, they've got their act together, they prepared. stuart: very sharp edged. ashley: , yes. stuart: very straight to the point. there was some emotion in the man's voice. >> true. so maybe now they're lulling her into a false sense of complacence. i doubt it happen i don't think they thank strategically but i have some hope. stuart: they called it a fishing expedition, end it now, it's just an attack on the future candidate for the democratic party, get rid of it, go away, stop it now. a much more effective message than what we've heard from the republicans. let's not forget the dow jones industrial is up 250 points and the stocks are going up to
the moon. for example, mcdonald's, and i digress because the hearing so far has provided no fireworks whatsoever. you want fireworks? they're on the market today. mcdonald's a brand-new all-time high, approached $110 a share earlier. and now why the y is the dow industrial average up 244 points? answer? because the europeans have opened the door to a lot more money printing. go back up some more and got some pretty interesting movement in various big name stocks. liz: good results mcdonald's, ebay. ashley: existing home sales hitting like the second highest level since the recession so the housing stock market is coming back. stuart: that's a good one and all you've got, monica is a poor performing republican party. >> i need to drown my sorrows . stuart: don't do that. i'm sure you'll be okay. later on this afternoon.
our time is up, i think we're going to go back to those hearings. neil cavuto standing by, take it away, neil. neil: thank you very much, stuart. as stuart indicated here, if the markets are worried about what is happening in washington right now with these benghazi hearings and we're just a fraction way through the markets have a funny way of showing it. they're not laying pay glove on her, that seems to be the impression here so your knee-jerk reaction would be, well, why is the dow pouncing on that? there no surprises here, it is responding to some better than expected earnings news we had out today and good news on home sales, some very good news on the jobless claims front on the notion that the economy is chugging along just fine. now, you might interpret a performance on the part of the republicans that is very analogous to not laying a glove on the former secretary of state as being something wall street would not like to hear, especially given her ideas as a presidential candidate to rain in on wall street. but i would like to stress the