tv Special Report With Bret Baier FOX News October 22, 2015 3:00pm-4:01pm PDT
with stage 4 breast cancer. that diagnosis came in the spring so best wishes to aunt mary and boy, harris, you inspire us. you did good. >> so set your dvr so you never miss an episode of "the five." "special report" is next. this is a fox news alert. i'm brett baier in washington, hillary clinton continues her testimony at this hour before the house select committee on benghazi. we will take you back there live shortly. first a recap of what's gone on since the hearing began eight hours ago, plusrom our expanded all-star panel. let's begin with our fox team coverage. catherine herridge with some fact-checking of what clinton said today. and we begin with chief congressional correspondent mike emmanuel. >> hillary clinton has spoken about benghazi before. this time her email provided a useful tool to help with asking her questions. >> i was the one who asked chris
to go to libya. >> former secretary of state and current presidential candidate hillary clinton testified before the select committee looking into the incident which ended with the death of ambassador chris stevens and three other americans. republican chairman trey gowdy said the focus was on the americans killed and not on campaign politics. >> there are people frankly in both parties who have suggested that this investigation is about you. let me assure you it is not. this investigation is about four people who were killed representing our country on foreign soil. >> clinton's democratic allies, suggested this was a waste of time and money. >> the select committee has spent 17 months and $4.7 million of taxpayer money. >> ohio republican jim jordan used clinton own email to family members and foreign dignitaries hours after the attack to show
she didn't believe the obama administration's internet narrative was. >> you can tell the truth like you did with the egyptian prime minister, and your family, tell them it was a terrorist attack. you picked the video narrative. >> clinton said nobody feels worse about benghazi than she does. >> i've lost more sleep than all of you put together. i have been wracking my brain about what more could have been done. >> as for stevens, clinton said he was aware libya was a dangerous assignment. >> chris stevens understood that diplomats must operate in many places where our soldiers do not. in fact, he volunteered for just those assignments. >> stevens made hundreds of requests for more security in 120 20 12, but clinton said she didn't micromanage people handling those matters. >> 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. >> but indiana republican susan brooks suggested clinton and her team took their eye off libya, in the months before the attack. >> this pile in 2011 i see daily updates. sometimes hourly updates. from your staff about benghazi and chris stevens. when i look at this pile in 2012, i only see a handful of emails to you from your senior staff about benghazi. >> clinton acknowledged stevens didn't have her personal email address. but lawmakers have her friend sidney blumenthal's electronic messages. that led to sparks flying between the chairman and the panel's top democrat. >> why is it you only want mr. blumenthal's transcript released. >> i would like to have them all released. >> the survivors, their names? you want those released. >> it is noteworthy that blumenthal's emails got her
attention, yet security requests from her ambassador in libya, she says did not reach her desk. brett? >> mike emmanuel live on the hill. let's get more details from hillary clinton's testimony before the house select committee on benghazi and some apparent contradictions, chief intelligence correspondent catherine herridge is here. mrs. clinton said today will was never a recommendation to leave benghazi. >> well that's right, brett, mrs. clinton testified there was a certain level of comfort with the high threat level, and the operation was not in jeopardy. >> will%;
and moving state department personnel in with the c.i.a., where security was high. quote c.i.a. suggested that mission personnel could co-locate to the annex if the security environment degraded suddenly. in the longer-term, we believe former co-location with the c.i.a. will greatly improve our security situation. the state department has always been reluctant to confirm the emergency meeting took place. and the classified cable was one of the last documents provided to the senate intelligence committee investigation. brett? >> were there plans to make the consulate or the facility permanent in benghazi? >> well today mrs. clinton gave the impression that the u.s. operation in eastern libya was only temporary. >> there was not a, an active plan for a consulate in benghazi. at any point during this period. that is not what the compound in benghazi was. it was a temporary facility. placed there to help us make a
determination. as to what we would need going forward in benghazi. >> but ambassador chris stevens' deputy, greg hicks, testified under oath on capitol hill, about a specific conversation he had with stevens about mrs. clinton's plan. >>dy tell the accountability review board that secretary clinton wanted the post made permanent. ambassador pickering was surprised. >> he later told fox news that stevens had to be in benghazi that september 11th because of a budget deadline at the end of that month. brett? >> secretary clinton said today there was a lot of confusion about the attack. >> the mortar strike on the c.i.a. annex is the smoking gun evidence that it was premeditated terrorism. three mortars struck the c.i.a. in under 90 seconds, fired from more than a half-mile away. it was a professional hit that required training and planning, it killed former navy s.e.a.l.s, ty wood and glen doherty and it
nearly blew off the leg of a diplomatic security agent. today mrs. clinton's emails show she didn't believe herself that a video was responsible for this terrorist attack. brett? >> let's bring in our special expanded panel for some thoughts on the day. steve hayes, senior writer for the "weekly standard," judge andrew napolitano and syndicated columnist charles krauthammer. and a.b. stoddard. >> the lead for the day is hillary clinton repeatedly offers false or misleading testimony. and journalists yawn. journalists don't seem to be that interested in what she's been saying. and i'll give you one example in particular. secretary clinton was presented with emails from representative jim jordan. an email she sent to hillary clinton on the night of the attack, september 11th, 2012. saying it was an al qaeda attack. >> sent to chelsea. >> i'm sorry, hillary clinton to
chelsea clinton. saying it was an al qaeda attack. and a memo taken by a state department note-taker. recording a conversation between hillary clinton and the egyptian prime minister september 12th. ask in both of those instances, hillary clinton was saying this was an attack. not a protest. and said it had nothing to do with the video. and yet, two days later on september 11th 14th, when she greets the caskets at joint base andrews in suburban washington, d.c., she tells some of the family members of those killed in benghazi that she and the government were determined to get the film maker who was responsible for the death of their children. you can't have it both ways. >> as we take a live look, judge. they've just taken a break, they're going to be back at 6:14. we'll be back when they go back into session and the questioning, we're now on our third round. the beginning of the third
round. there is supposed to be four rounds. this is a long situation. your thoughts on the day. >> i look at it from the point of view of three audiences she should be thinking about addressing. the first is the members of congress that are there in the room. the second is the american public, which she wants to have elect her president. and the third i think she's forgotten about, that's about 25 fbi agents and investigators in the justice department not far from where she testified today. who are looking at the following things she said. they're looking for material misrepresentations. they're looking for the willingness to deceive. they're looking for actual material lies, remember. she's under oath. and they're looking for how many different versions she can possibly give of the various events. and i suggest to you that they found a field day today. my colleague steve hayes has just outlined a couple of her deceptions and different versions. remember, she can be prosecuted
for misleading congress as well as for lying to congress. she is under oath this is not a political rally. she's also being investigated by the fbi for at least four crimes, espionage. failure to secure government secrets, destruction of property, wiping the server clean. lying under oath to a federal judge, when she said she gave the government everything. and i think the fbi has a lot more to go on today as a result of the testimony. because she forget about that third and hidden audience. >> a.b. to hear a lot of people talk about this, they say there's an overabundance of focus and coverage on sidney blumenthal. there was several rounds of questions about it, from different lawmakers, trey gowdy. sid blumenthal not part of the government apparatus, he was turned down by the white house to work with his old friend, hillary clinton. but he was still providing what he called intelligence and she was still accepting it. here's the back-and-forth with
trey gowdy on sid 0 blumenthal. >> regardless of where he ranked in order of the advisers, it is undisputed that a significant number of your emails were to or from a sidney blumenthal. did the president know that mr. blumenthal was advising you? >> he wasn't advising me. >> did he know that he was your most prolific emailers that we have found on the subjects of libya and benghazi. >> that's because i didn't do most of my work about libya on email. >> i'm not challenging that. my question to you is did the president, did he know that he was advising you? >> he was not advising me and i have no reason to have ever mentioned that or know that the president knew that. >> she went on to say that she used some of the emails and memos, took his name off of it and circulated it in intel circles and at the white house. >> most americans don't know who sid blumenthal is we've discussed these very emails.
here in the last couple of weeks. we talked about how clear it is that he's a friend, the emails are solicited. there's a back and forth. there's 500 or more of them. she's very encouraging and enthusiastic. he gives her all kinds of advice, disparages other people. it's a free-flowing of information and they're in constant contact. what she did today was brilliant. she was an impeccable witness. there's no sound bites where she implodes she said he's not an adviser and said sometimes the information was so valuable she thought the ambassador in libya should have it. to read and respond to. so she never. it was the same with the discussion about the video. why didn't you try out the video line. she managed to never become defensive. she was masterful. that's why there's no sound bite where she freaks out and gives -- if it ends up that she's per juried herself, her performance is better than the
democrats on the committee and better than the republicans. >> clearly measured and different from the sound bite that got a lot of pick-up last time. what difference does it make in the exchange. but the sid blumenthals emails, what difference does that make. is this not a rabbit hole they're going down. but in the context of chris stevens whose emails a lot of them arrived at the committee this week, he did not have direct access to hillary clinton. asking for security improvements, but sid blumenthal did. >> i think that's a fair point. but i think the committee spent, republicans on the committee spent much too much time on that if you're talking about the benghazi affair, the lack of security at the beginning, who knows what happened during the attack. and the outright lies afterwards, the fact that sid had the email address and the ambassador didn't is a point, but it's a very minor point. it's not going to persuade
anybody. trey gowdy is a terrific interrogator. if you ever want to commit a murder, you want to make sure you do it in the district where he is not a prosecutor. because you might have a chance. i think he wasted a lot of his valuable time on that. there was new information, damning information, the email she sent to her daughter and the phone call she made to the prime minister of egypt are really quite shocking. >> let's listen to that again. it's also clipped with what she said before. and also what she told the father of tyrone woods. >> the email you sent to your if a manically. you said at 11:00 that night, one hour after you told the american people about the video. you said to your family, two officers were killed today in benghazi by an claual qaeda-lik group. you knew the truth, but that's not what the american people got. >> i think if you look at the
statement that i made i clearly said there was an attack. there was a lot of conflicting information we were trying to make sense of. the situation was very fluid, it was fast-moving. >> we've seen the heavy assault on our post in benghazi. that took the lives of those brave men. we've seen rage and violence directed at american embassies over an awful internet video that we had nothing to do with. >> well this is what hillary did. she came over and i gave her a hug, shook her hand and she did not appear to be one bit sincere at all. and you know, she mentioned that thing about we're going to have that person arrested and prosecuted. that did the video. >> that's the father of tyrone woods. died in the attack. that's the heart of a scandalous reaction. after the attack. they knew it was a terror attack. they got it from gregory hicks, who was on the ground in tripoli. who told them that he had ended
up demoted in the state department for having transgressed against the secretary. and yet, they go ahead, they put susan rice on that weekend. and tell a tale that is completely false. spontaneous demonstration, out of control, et cetera, of the video. i think that's where the emphasis ought to be. i think a.b. is right. the judge said there are three audiences, the main audience that matters unless she's indicted, is the people. american people watching this. they don't care about blumenthal. she had her way, when she lowered her voice, and talked about the sleepless nights, it was a gripping performance, which is the way i would put it. so i can remain neutral on this. but showing that she really cared, et cetera or at least giving that impression. and that's what's going to be shown. and the only thing that's going to be shown on the committee
other than that, in the clips is going to be that trey gowdy interchange with cummings. which of course is a conflict reality tv. and a nice little bit of heat. we're not going to get the contradictions, we're not going to get the facts, we're not going to get the real story underlying it. we're living in an age where what you say and its relation with the facts is completely irrelevant as we see in the presidential campaign. and it's carrying over into the hearings. >> well i mean, how much did what kevin mccarthy said before this hearing, after the outcome of this hearing. we knew the republicans had a high bar to go over. but it seemed like the bar even went up further because of all the preamble to this hearing. >> no question. i think journalists in washington, covering the campaign, covering this issue wanted to disregard the committee. didn't want to have to pay attention to the committee. kevin mccarthy gave them the excuse they needed. they can sort of wipe this off and move on.
let me just say, i agree with a.b. and charles, she gave an impressive performance. she was unflappable. she maintained her calm. >> let's point out, we're halfway through. halfway through. >> we're talking 10:00, to 11:00 p.m., maybe later. >> and the longer it goes, the better it helps her. >> we've had late-night primary coverage, where we got a little punchy. >> i'm going to argue that the longer it goes, the more it hurts her. because the more q&a to which she has to respond, is more fodder for the fbi to examine with respect to prior inconsistency. >> there's two ways to look at it. politically and legally. the more ammunition you give the fbi, the more they have to work with. by politically, i agree, she was masterful. >> i think she is as a presumptive nominee. she's not formidable. she's under fbi investigation.
that's far more serious than this hearing she knew how to get through it and she did. no mat weather kevin mccarthy said, some of the questioning today was loaded with comment and it shouldn't have been. the democrats were gratuitously partisan. but the republicans were often rude and obnoxious and they injected too much comments and that played to her. >> let me make my fundamental point. think she gave an impressive performance if you judge it based on her demeanor. for anybody who cares about substance and facts, she tripped up on herself on arguably some of the most important aspects of the benghazi controversy. the false nartive that the administration sold to the country six weeks before the election because the president had started six months before the election to spin a tale about al qaeda being on the run and it wasn't. she compounded her problems, because she was presented with her own words, that contradicted
everything they had said. and she had no answer for it. so if you care about substance and facts, she's in trouble. the problem is it's that conditional. >> who cares about substance and facts, our friends in the justice department. >> but we're talking about here, her impact on her public image. this is the book-end to her performance in the debate. it's so you look at the this week, the debate performance, vice president biden doesn't run and now this. up until now, this has been a pretty good week. >> it's what i've been saying for three months, unless indicted she can't lose the nomination. >> unless indicted she can look back to today if they ask about any email question that has to do with the fbi decision on benghazi, she can say, i've answered 16 hours of questions on this. >> we're going to take you back to the hearing after a quick break. we'll go live to the hearing room as the questioning will continue. the panel will stick around, we will get into substance. we'll get into everything that happened today up on capitol hill. at old dominion, we see freight...
...as a combination of products and customers. every on-time arrival is backed by thousands of od employees, ...who make sure the millions of products we ship arrive without damages. because od employees treat customer service... ...like our most important delivery. od. helping the world keep promises. after a dvt blood clot.mind when i got out of the hospital what about my family? my li'l buddy? and what if this happened again? i was given warfarin in the hospital but i wondered if this was the right treatment for me. then my doctor told me about eliquis. eliquis treats dvt and pe blood clots and reduces the risk of them happening again. not only does eliquis treat dvt and pe blood clots, but eliquis also had significantly less
major bleeding than the standard treatment. knowing eliquis had both... turned around my thinking. don't stop eliquis unless your doctor tells you to. eliquis can cause serious and in rare cases fatal bleeding. don't take eliquis if you have an artificial heart valve or abnormal bleeding. if you had a spinal injection while on eliquis call your doctor right away if you have tingling, numbness, or muscle weakness. while taking eliquis, you may bruise more easily... and it may take longer than usual for bleeding to stop. seek immediate medical care for sudden signs of bleeding, like unusual bruising. eliquis may increase your bleeding risk if you take certain medicines. tell your doctor about all planned medical or dental procedures. eliquis treats dvt & pe blood clots. plus had less major bleeding. both made switching to eliquis right for me. ask your doctor if it's right for you.
for the first time, u.s. is acknowledging the death of an american service member in the fight against isis. it happened during an otherwise successful rescue operation in northern iraq. national security correspondent jennifer griffin has the specifics tonight from the pentagon. >> the kurdish leaders requested u.s. help a few weeks ago. plan to rescue kurdish fighter, held by isis in a makeshift prison 56 miles south of erbil. no kurdish hostages that were found. of the 70 hostages that were freed, many were iraqi security forces, no western hostages were thought to be there. intel suggested the iraqi hostages would be killed. >> this operation was deliberately planned and launched after receiving information that the hostages faced imminent mass execution. it was authorized consistent with our counterisil effort. >> the u.s. provided the airlift. five helicopters including
chinook to care rye the hostages out. kurdish special forces were in the lead. about two dozen elite u.s. commanders were on the ground. one american and army special operator was killed. shot in a gunfight. flown to erbil where he died of his wounds. the pentagon press secretary refused to call it combat and denied the operation violated the president's order mandating no u.s. boots on the ground. >> this was authorized by the secretary of defense. specifically under our operation inherent resolve mission. specifically the campaign to defeat isil to support to iraqi security forces, which includes the kurdish peshmerga forces. so it was within this operation they were acting. >> the american forces that have been deployed to iraq do not and will not have a combat mission. i will not commit you and the rest of our armed forces to fighting another ground war in iraq. >> it's notable brett that the
president did not order this operation. the elite u.s. commando killed today is the first american service member to die on the ground as part of the anti-isil fight. brett? >> a noncombat gunfight. jennifer griffin at the pentagon, thank you. the commander-in-chief is rejectsing the latest congressional plan to fund the military. a short time ago, president obama made good on his threat to veto the defense authorization act. correspondent kevin corke looks at why and what comes next. >> it was rare but certainly expected. for just the fifth time in seven years in office, president obama used the power of the pen to veto a measure. this time the national defense authorization act. the latest salvo in the ongoing showdown over government spending and sequestration. the national defense authorization act is a $612 billion defense spending bill that congress passed earlier this month. president objects to two major parts of it it allows the pentagon to circumvent the budget caps that apply to all
other federal agencies and since the pentagon an additional $38 billion in war funding and prohibits the use of funds to transfer or release detainees from guantanamo bay prison until the end of 2016. >> it's time for to us close it it's been there for years and we can do better in terms of keeping people safe while making sure that we are consistent with our values. >> on capitol hill, congressional republicans accuse the white house of playing politics with national security. >> in all my years in the united states senate i've never witnessed anything so misguided. cynical and downright dangerous as vetoing the defense authorization for reasons that have nothing to do with defense. >> and we're going to do everything we can to override the president's veto on november 5th. that's the date of the vote in the house. >> the veto comes days after the commander-in-chief announces that u.s. force levels will
remain near 10,000 in afghanistan through the end of 2016. and on a day when the prime minister of neighboring pakistan, sharif visited the white house seeking to strengthen economic and security ties between the two countries. >> house leaders have set a date of november 5th. at which point he will try to override the presidential veto. if any count is any indication, there's far more than enough support by the democrats to sustain the veto. which means for the gop it's back to the drawing board, brett. >> kevin corke live, thank you. as we look like on capitol hill, still in a break, when we come back, we hope the panel will be back with more analysis. maybe ed henry on the political implications.
if you love shrimp like i love shrimp, come to red lobster's endless shrimp... ...for as much as you want, any way you want it... sweet, buttery, and creamy. like new pineapple habanero coconut shrimp bites... ...and teriyaki grilled shrimp. and yeah, it's endless, but it won't last forever. you fifteen percent or more on huh, fiftcar insurance.uld save yeah, everybody knows that. well, did you know that playing cards with kenny rogers gets old pretty fast? ♪ you got to know when to hold'em. ♪ ♪ know when to fold 'em. ♪ know when to walk away. ♪ know when to run. ♪ you never count your money, ♪ when you're sitting at the ta...♪ what? you get it? i get the gist, yeah. geico. fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more on car insurance. or building the best houses in town. or becoming the next highly-unlikely dotcom superstar. and us, we'll be right there with you,
helping with the questions you need answered to get your brand new business started. we're legalzoom and we've already partnered with over a million new business owners to do just that. check us out today to see how you can become one of them. legalzoom. legal help is here. i am totally blind. and sometimes i struggle to sleep at night, and stay awake during the day. this is called non-24. learn more by calling 844-824-2424. or visit your24info.com.
we danced in a german dance group. i wore lederhosen.man. when i first got on ancestry i was really surprised that i wasn't finding all of these germans in my tree. i decided to have my dna tested through ancestry dna. the big surprise was we're not german at all. 52% of my dna comes from scotland and ireland. so, i traded in my lederhosen for a kilt. ancestry has many paths to discovering your story. get started for free at ancestry.com. as you look live here, let's head back to the testimony at the benghazi hearing. representative peter roscom from
illinois asking the questions right now. secretary clinton. >> to admit the need for more security was to admit that there was a deteriorating situation. and to admit a deteriorating situation didn't fit your narrative of a successful foreign policy. where did i get that wrong? >> congressman, look we knew that libya's transition from the brutal dictatorship of gadhafi, which basically destroyed on undermined every institution in the country would be challenging and we planned accordingly. we worked closely with the libyan people, with our allies in europe with partners in the region. to make sure that we tried to get positioned to help the libyan people. and yes, the volatile security environment in libya complicated
our efforts. but we absolutely -- i'll speak for myself -- i absolutely did not forget about libya after gadhafi fell. we worked closely with the interim government and we offered a wide range of technical assistance, we were very much involved in helping them provide their first parliamentary elections. that was quite an accomplishment. a lot of other countries that were post-conflict did not have anything like the positive elections libya did. in july of 2012, the transitional government handed over power to a new general national congress in august. we were doing everything we could think of to help libya succeed. we tried to bolster the effectiveness of the interim government. we worked very hard to get rid of the chemical weapons, coordinating with the transition libyan authorities, with the u.n. and others. and by february of 2014, we had assisted in destroying last of
gadhafi's chemical weapons. we with were combatting the spread of shoulder, anti-aircraft shoulder-fired missiles. because of the danger that they posed to commercial aircraft. and we were providing assistance, some of which i discussed earlier with congresswoman roby. we had humanitarian assistance, we brought people for health to europe. and for and to the united states. but much of what we offered, despite our best efforts, we had the prime minister come to washington in the spring of 2012. much of what we offered was difficult. for the libyans to understand how to accept. i traveled as you know, to libya. and met there, i stayed in close touch with libya's leaders throughout the rest of my time as secretary. both of my deputies there.
we talked with the libyan leadership frequently by phone. from washington and communicated regularly as i have said with our team based in tripoli. and all of this was focused on trying to help stand up a new interim government. and we were making progress on demilitarization, demobilization, trying to reintegrate militia fighters into something resembling a security force and on securing loose weapons. i think it's important to recognize and of course i was ultimately responsible for security. i took responsibility for what happened in benghazi. >> what does that mean when you say i took responsibility. when mr. westmoreland you said what, contracting and so forth. so when you say you're responsible for something, madam secretary, what does that mean? if you're responsible, what, what action would you have done differently? what do you own as a result of
this? so far i've heard since we've been together today. i've heard one dismissive thing after another. it was this group, it was that group. i wasn't served by this. i wasn't served by that. what did you do? what do you own? well zbl well i was just telling you some of the many related issues i was working on to try to help the libyan people. >> what's your responsibility to benghazi? that's my question. >> well my responsibility was to be briefed and to discuss with the security experts and the policy experts, whether we would have a post in benghazi, whether we would continue it. whether we would make it permanent. and as i've said repeatedly throughout the day, no one ever recommended closing the post in benghazi. >> no one recommended closing, but you had two ambassadors that made several, several requests and here's basically what happened to their requests. >> they were torn up. >> well that's just not true,
congressman. >> madam secretary, they didn't get through, it didn't help them. were those responded to? is that your testimony today? >> many were responded to. there were affirmative responses to a number of requests for additional security -- >> and you laid it on chris stevens, didn't you? you said earlier, he knows where to pull the levers. so aren't you implying that it's his responsibility to figure out how he's supposed to be secure? because chris stevens knows how to pull the levers? is that your testimony? >> ambassadors are the ones who pass on security recommendations and requests. that's true throughout the world. they, too, rely on security professionals. >> what's his remedy if it's no? >> as i testified earlier, he was in regular email contact with some of my closest advisers. he was in regular email contact and cable contact with a number
of -- >> cables didn't get through, you created an environment, madam secretary, where the cables couldn't get through. >> that is inaccurate. cables as we have testified and as -- >> they didn't get through to you, they didn't break into your inner circle. that was your testimony earlier. canada have it both ways, you can't say all this information came in to me and i was able to process it. and yet it always, it all stops at the security professionals. >> that's, congressman, not what i was saying, i think we've tried to clarify that millions of cables come in. they're processed and sent to the appropriate offices and personnel with respect to -- specifics -- >> they didn't get through. didn't make any difference. couldn't break in to the inner circle of decision-making. now let me draw your attention in closing to testimony that you gave before the house foreign affairs committee in january 2013. and you said some wonderful things about ambassador stevens. similar to what you said in your
opening statement today. and they were words that were warm and inspirational. and reflecting on his bravery. i think in light of the facts that have come out since your testimony and i think in light of things that the committee has learned, he's been braver than you acknowledged. in january 2013. this is what you said to congress. nobody knew the dangers on the opportunities better than chris. during the first revolution, then during the transition, a weak libyan government, marauding militias, even terrorist groups, a bomb exploded in the parking lot of his hotel. he never wavered, he never asked to come home. he never said let's shut it down, quit or go somewhere else. he understood it was pivotal for america to be represented in that place at that time. but secretary clinton, i think you should have added this -- >> chris stevens kept faith with the state department that i headed even when we broke faith with him. he accepted my invitation to
serve in benghazi, even though he was denied the security he implored to us give him. >> i don't want to interrupt for breaking news, representative paul ryan, chairman of the house ways and means committee has made it official. with a letter to colleagues, says i am ready and eager to be our speaker. sent the letter out just moments ago. he is now in and obviously has cobbled together the votes needed to get to the 218 majority of the republican conference. more than that, to get the different elements of the republican conference to side with him going forward. quick round with the panel, we'll head back to the hearing. a.b.? >> well even as recently as a few hours ago there's a lot of nervousness about how long the coalition will last. more than 218 members? it will not be 47. >> the total number of republicans in the house. >> the total number of republicans in the house and ryan wanted every single one of them. he wanted complete and total
consensus and unity. he's not going to get it the freedom caucus, which was supporting somebody else and could therefore block him, has changed their mind, enough of them and 80% of them are going to go with ryan. they're not endorsing him. they're supporting him. they will vote for him. he's not agreed to their stipulations. i mean excuse me, they've not agreed to his stipulations. so there's a real room for a fight to break out when the honeymoon ends, we don't know if it will be a week or a month. some members thought maybe this vote should be taken sooner than next week. so it's just a long road ahead. >> at the end of the letter he writes, i never thought i'd be speaker, but i pledge to you that if i could be a unifying figure, then i would serve. i would go all in. after talking with so many of you and hearing your words of encouragement. i believe we are red-day move forward as one unit. i'm eager to be our speaker, this is just the beginning of our work. there's a long road ahead, so let's get started.
charles? >> well look, it's clear that he obviously has the numbers he needs to be elected speaker. but the bigger question and the threat to him is where will they be on the continuing resolution meaning the resolution to not shut down the government. where will they be on raising the debt ceiling. where will they be on the issues that the freedom caucus feels very strongly one way and the rest of the republican conference does not. now did he get any kinds of guarantees? he had a meeting with the freedom caucus, they will support him for speaker. but will they be there for the votes that are really hard and the votes that really dwight dwooid the republicans in the house? i hope he got the guarantees, because otherwise he's walking into a mine field. >> but let's be honest, paul ryan voted against increasing the debt ceiling the last time around in 2014. so there's going to have to be some sort of deal made on that specific case before november 3rd.
>> soy put this question directly to a leader of the house freedom caucus last night. he made clear that there was no quid pro quo. there wasn't a deal, nobody signed anything there wasn't even a hand shake deal. but the general sense was paul ryan, the freedom caucus members were going to be able to vote their conscience, vote the way they wanted to. in exchange, ryan, this next calendar year, going into a presidential year, was going to push big, bold conservative reforms. push an all-house obamacare alternative. push serious welfare reform. the kind of things that unite conservatives, that puts members of the house freedom caucus. with ryan on these things. and that i think was maybe the beginnings of some kind of a working agreement. moving forward. the other question i think ryan has, has to, will face is not only what do house freedom caucus members, but what do the outsiders who have been critical of ryan running as speaker of the house say? you've had intense criticism.
harsh criticism. i would say over-the-top criticism of ryan. largely because of differences on immigration and on t.a.r.p. do the people who have been beating him up from the right sort of stand back and say let's judge him on his performance. or is this part of a continual campaign to take him down? >> judge? >> i spoke to a couple of the freedom caucus people earlier today and i think this is a very, very delicate balance that won't last very long. it only took one person, one congressman from north carolina to file that privileged notion, the chair is empty and how did it end? it ended with john boehner resigning. the speakership. and from the house. the folks i talked to view this as a change from tweedle-dee, to tweedle-dum, they don't think this is long-term. >> it's really too bad. paul ryan is, they're lucky to have him and he has, you know, people-level popularity.
to come into this really thankless job and be taken down really quickly would be a terrible shame for the republican party. >> i want to get in the breaking news, we'll head back to the benghazi hearing now and you would think that everyone asking questions is from illinois. but that's not true. but next up, tammy duckworth. the congresswoman from illinois. democrat, talking to hillary clinton. >> what are we doing? do we have fast teams gearing up ready to go? what is going on in light of the lessons learned at benghazi, and what did you personally direct to happen, especially at your level of interagency cooperation? >> an excellent question and it's really at the heart of what i hope will come out of this. and the prior investigations. in december of 2014, assistant secretary starr from the state department testified before the select committee, that 25 of the 29 recommendations made by the a.r.b. had been completed.
and a september 2013 inspector general's report noted that the a.r.b. recommendations were made in a way that was quickly taken seriously and that i took charge directly of oversight for the implementation process. here's some examples. more diplomatic security and d.o.d. personnel are on the ground at our facilities today. we have increased the skills and competency for our diplomatic security agents by increasing the training time in the thigh hooi thread course. we've expanded the, about foreign affairs counterthreat course. so that the skills are shared by not just the diplomatic security agents, but people like chris stevens and shawn smith as well. we've also been working hard, to up the interagency cooperation. the interagency security teams that you asked about earlier,
congresswoman, that's a continuing commitment that we are working on. and i know because of this, terrible tragedy, d.o.d. is much more focused on what needs to be thought through with respect to planning and reaction. you know, we had problems in the past with the pastor from florida, terry jones, inciting riots and protests that resulted in the deaths of people, including u.n. and others, who were stationed in afghanistan. and so we're trying in very close touch between the state department and the d.o.d. in that case secretary gates called him and asked him please not to get involved in what he was doing. because it was dangerous to our troops and our civilians. unfortunately, you know, he has a mind apparently of his own. so we are trying to have a closer coordinated planning and
response effort. with respect to your specific questions that are really within the purview of the department of defense. like the deployment of certain navy vessels, air wings and the like. i think that d.o.d. is trying hard to think about how particularly in north africa and the middle east, they can respond. because one of the, one of the claims that was made and indeed the closest air support that would have been in any way relevant was too far away. so they're trying to think about how deploy and station various, various assets, so that they can have a quicker response time. i've not been involved intimately in this now for two years, i guess more than two years.
>> you spoke about you making personal phone calls to ask for help from the heads of local governments, and you spoke a lot about the power of the chief of the mission, the trust that you put into these professionals that are there. call you to ask for help from our u.s. agencies and the u.s. government. if there's a d.o.d.
preexisting understanding between the diplomatic compound and the c.i.a. annex. and there was no need for anybody at the compound to call washington to alert the c.i.a. annex. they immediately contacted the c.i.a. annex and you know, they sprang into action. come to. we're trying to that goes to your question. if there are assets in the region, how do we plan for contingencies so they can be immediately triggered and tried to respond. you know i obviously spoke to the white house, i spoke to general petraeus, i spoke to you know, lots of other people that evening trying to get whatever help we can get. we did get a surveillance plane
above the location, but it took some time to get there. it had to be -- >> i'm sorry, it was an unarmed drone, correct? >> it was on, an unarmed -- >> uav. >> yeah, uav, right. so we, we asked for everything we could get. and everybody immediately tried to provide it. but i think now there's more awareness that maybe we should be doing these scenarios ahead of time to try to figure out what could be done without having to you know reinvent it every time. >> thank you. i'm out of time, mr. chairman. >> yield back to the gentle lady from illinois. the chair would recognize the gentle woman from indiana. >> thank you, madam secretary. i'm going to follow up on what the congresswoman from illinois is discussing, which is the facility and i appreciate the laundry list that you just listed with respect to the security improvements or
whatever happened with respect to benghazi. but i have to ask you, if you're familiar with the facts that in the wake of the 1998 bombing attacks in nairobi and dar eslam, congress passed something referred to as the secca. which required the secretary of state to issue a waiver under two conditions if the u.s. government personnel work in separate facilities or if u.s. oversees facilities do not meet the security setback distances specified by the bureau of diplomatic security. the law specifies that only the secretary of state may sign these waivers, and that requirement is not to be delegated. was a waiver issued for the temporary mission in benghazi? and the c.i.a. annex, after the temporary mission compound was
authorized through december of 2012? and did you sign that waiver, madam secretary? >> i think that the, the c.i.a. annex i had no responsibility for. so i cannot speak to what the decisions were with respect to the c.i.a. annex. that is something i know other committees have -- >> you acknowledge you were responsible for the temporary mission compound. >> yes of course. but you put them together. i wanted to clarify i had no responsibility for the c.i.a. annex obviously. the compound in benghazi was neither an embassy nor a consulate. those are the only two facilities for which we would obtain a formal diplomatic notification. and those were the only kinds of facilities that we would have sought waivers for at the time.
because we were trying to as has been testified to earlier. understand whether we were going to have a permanent mission or not. that means you have to survey available facilities, try to find a secure facility. and the standards that are set by the interagency overseas security policy board. are the goals we try to drive for. but it is, it is in the immediate aftermath of a conflict situation. the temporary mission in benghazi was set up to try to find out what was going oned in the area, to work with the cia where appropriate, and to make a decision as to whether there would be a permanent facility. so we could not have met the goals under the overseas security policy board. nor could we have issued a
waiver because we had to set up operations in order to make the assessments as to whether or not we would have a permanent mission, whether that mission would remain open we made extensive and comprehensive improvements to the security which i mentioned before. >> madam secretary, thank you. so it is obvious that a waiver was not signed and you have given a defense as to why a waiver was not signed and it was teamp temporary because it was made up. the compound had never become official. so, therefore, you did not sign a waiver, which, when most of our people are stationed in such dangerous places, let me get into that. with respect to the dangerous places, we know that libya, you've testified before was incapable of providing host nation
support, and that involved protecting our diplomats and other u.s. government officials who traveled there. so the libyan people didn't have a government capable of providing security and we didn't have the u.s. military in libya, then we have two options. we either leave when it gets too dangerous or the state department makes sure that they provide that protection. and a i want to just chat with you a little bit about the fact that when ambassador stevens returned there in late may, 2012, after being named ambassador less than four months later he was killed. the number of violent attacks that occurred that summer are off the charts they are against westerners. i would like you to refer to tab 6. it is a 51-page document prepared by your head security guy in libya for security incidents. serious security incidents between june 2011 and
july 2012. 51 pages long. 235 significant security incidents. 235 attacks in one year. in benghazi, there were 77 serious attacks in one year. 64 in 2012. now, let me just tell you, as i flip through, this and i'm not talking benghazi as i showed earlier, it is a large city, about the size of d.c. or boston. i'm not talking about violent attacks like every day robberies, burglaries, hold-ups. i'm talking about assassination attempts and assassinations, bombings, kidnappings, attacks on the red cross, the red cross gave up and pulled out the people who always go in when disaster strikes, they pulled out. that doesn't include 20 other. >> you are watching testimony before the house select benghazi committee. coverage that will continue here on fox news channel. thanks for i object violating us into your home tonight. that's it for this "special report," fair, balanced and
unafraid. greta goes "on the record" with all of this right now. ♪ ♪ this is a fox news alert. he is in. congressman paul ryan officially jumping into the rails for speaker of the house. after much contemplation the wisconsin congressman just a short time ago saying he is ready to rise to the occasion after getting unified backing from the g.o.p. congressman ryan hoping to reunite a broken house and in a letter to his colleagues he says we have the opportunity to turn the page, to start with a clean slate, and to rebuild what has been lost. the election will be held next week and congressman ryan is expected to win. also breaking right now, fireworks on capitol hill. former secretary of state hillary clinton testifying before the house benghazi select committee. that marathon hearing still underway. let's listen. >> we don