Tag: benghazi investigation
GOP 'Investigations' Rerun Is The Lowest Form Of Political Comedy

GOP 'Investigations' Rerun Is The Lowest Form Of Political Comedy

Now that the Republicans have eked out a tiny majority in the next Congress, their leaders have announced the party’s legislative agenda – zero legislation but endless “investigation.”

Nobody except small children could have been surprised by the House Republican announcement, which was like a rollout touting the next sequel of a mediocre sci-fi franchise. While this show too will attract diehard fans, it sorely lacks freshness or appeal.

In 1994, when Republicans took control of Congress for the first time in 40 years, Newt Gingrich’s first order of business was to order up investigations on every conceivable front. Both House and Senate Republican leaders named special committees to excavate the Whitewater “scandal” – a long-ago land deal in rural Arkansas that had cost Bill and Hillary Clinton around $45,000 after a swindle perpetrated by their business partner, a mentally ill operator named James McDougal they had met through mutual political associates. Despite the Clintons’ thoroughly documented financial loss, the Republicans and the media endlessly promoted a false version of the story that supposedly implicated the Clintons criminally.

Neither the Congressional investigations nor the parallel probe by the late Whitewater independent counsel Kenneth Starr -- which squandered tens of millions of dollars -- ever proved any of the baroque assertions, which came to include a fantastic tale of the Clintons smuggling cocaine through a rural airport. And while those probes provoked episodes of hysteria in the press, none had much impact on voters, who reelected President Clinton overwhelmingly in 1996.

Flash forward to the Obama administration, which came under similarly hollow inquisitions by Congressional Republicans after the 2010 midterm. They busied themselves with conspiracy theories about the Internal Revenue Service and other smears, only to see President Obama easily reelected.

Then came the infamous Benghazi investigation, with yet another special House committee assigned to produce redundant nonsense after nine other investigations cleared the Obama administration and specifically Secretary of State Hillary Clinton of any wrongdoing. Kevin McCarthy himself famously blurted the true purpose of that fiasco, when he boasted that its entire motive was to damage Clinton’s reputation before the 2016 election cycle.

And now we hear again from Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), the excitable former wrestling coach credibly accused of covering up the sexual abuse of Ohio State students, who promises that GOP investigations will “frame up the 2024 election.” Anyone who observed Jordan in frantic and fruitless action during the Benghazi hearings -- especially that epic day when Hillary testified for 11 hours – can anticipate his upcoming antics. But he will face heavy competition from the equally manic Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), who reportedly has elbowed her way onto the House Oversight Committee in a deal to support McCarthy for Speaker.

When Republicans take power on January 3, 2023, the political abuse of congressional authority is set on rerun. The coming attractions touted by Jordan and Rep James Comer (R-KY) focus on the international business dealings of Hunter Biden, alleged for years to have entangled the president and other family members. Promising proof of bribery, money laundering, and other offenses, the incoming inquisitors point to a laptop computer that once belonged to Hunter Biden and the already debunked claims by a highly dubious former business partner.

This is a revival of the smears mounted by the Trump campaign and its allies years ago, back when Donald Trump tried to coerce the government of Ukraine into framing Biden with a faked “investigation” in exchange for defensive missiles, which led to his first impeachment.

But back to our upcoming rerun: Remember how disgraced attorney Rudy Giuliani first showed up with that Hunter Biden laptop? And how he refused to let anyone conduct a forensic examination of its hard drive? Giuliani couldn’t account for its chain of custody, but we now know that persons other than Hunter Biden have tampered with its contents. As a source of reliable information, the mystery laptop still remains highly suspect.

Not much better can be said for Tony Bobulinski, the ex-partner of the younger Biden who went over to the Trump camp two years ago. Before the 2020 election, he told the Wall Street Journal that Joe Biden had participated in his son’s overseas business affairs and lied about it. But after extensive reporting, the conservative Journal found that the available evidence contradicted Bobulinski’s sensational claims.

By his own account, Hunter Biden is a man whose personal tragedies, self-destructive addictions, and financial pressures left him deeply troubled. Cynical Republicans have long targeted him for mockery and abuse. What we have learned so far about him and his father is not a story of the father’s financial chicanery, however, but of a bereaved and tormented dad trying to save his surviving son.

What will unfold on Capitol Hill in the months ahead will closely resemble past episodes of right-wing snipe-hunting. After the tenure of the strongest Speaker in memory, Nancy Pelosi, we will see the weakest in Kevin McCarthy. The Republican Party is now in the hands of Trump’s stooge "Gym" Jordan and kooks like Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, mesmerized by Jewish space lasers, pizza-parlor pedophiles, and the injustice of prosecuting the January 6 insurrectionists. Prepare for fabrications, fantasies, and the lowest form of political comedy.

Republicans’ Benghazi Report Seeks Repetition, Not Truth

Republicans’ Benghazi Report Seeks Repetition, Not Truth

When Hillary Clinton was secretary of state, her approval ratings hit an all-time high. Republican luminaries Jeb Bush, Lindsey Graham, Marco Rubio, Rick Perry, John McCain — the list goes on — all sang her praises.

Then she ran for president.

The applause stopped, and the Republican opposition searched for a scandal, real or made-up, to pin on her. They landed on the terrorist attacks that cost the lives of an ambassador and three other Americans in Benghazi, Libya. Clinton was to be blamed for the tragedy of Sept. 11, 2012.

As Democrats have noted, the Republican-run probes into the Benghazi fiasco have gone on longer than did the inquiries into the Sept. 11, 2001, assault, the bombing of Pearl Harbor, the assassination of John F. Kennedy. But they’re meant to go on. That’s the whole point of them.

The House Republicans’ “final” report on Benghazi contains no new dope on Clinton, but the authors don’t need “new.” They’re looking for repetition. Spread the innuendo often and thick enough and a good chunk of the public will believe it.

Thanks to their efforts, the word “Benghazi” has become an incantation no longer attached to details. Even some Bernie Sanders liberals picked up on it, using “What about Benghazi?” as a talking point against Clinton. (Sanders himself did not.)

The latest report has about 800 pages of almost nothing not already reported. That did not preclude two Republican reps, Jim Jordan of Ohio and Mike Pompeo of Kansas, from writing a 48-page addendum taking extra swipes at the Obama administration.

The report failed to counter the most salient fact in Clinton’s defense. The U.S. military in Europe could not have reached Benghazi in time to save the Americans.

Was there adequate security at the American compound in Benghazi? Obviously not. That was the conclusion of an independent report led by retired diplomat Thomas Pickering and Adm. Michael Mullen. Though highly critical of the State Department’s security arrangements, they laid blame on lower-level officials rather than on Clinton. That wasn’t what the partisans wanted. Not at all.

They were peddling the ludicrous notion that the secretary of state personally manages the security of every U.S. embassy and consulate in the world. That’s like saying the CEO of Wal-Mart was to blame for two deaths when a tornado hit a store in Joplin, Missouri. (Wal-Mart was sued over that, by the way.)

American diplomats operate in the more unstable corners of the earth. That’s their job. The brave men and women who take on these dangerous assignments accept the risks. They are a lot like soldiers, except they generally don’t get to sleep in defended military bases.

Such harsh realities were swept aside, for there were politics to be played. House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy spilled the beans in a regrettable interview last September. “Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right?” the California Republican said. “But we put together a Benghazi special committee, a select committee. What are her numbers today?”

Hillary Clinton is not a Teflon politician. Things stick to her. But what Clinton lacks in Teflon, she has in cast iron.

Last October, her Benghazi tormentors subjected her to eight hours of televised hearings. This followed seven previous investigations. Point is, Clinton never cracked. The latest report may have taken a bite out of the U.S. paper supply, but one doubts it will put another dent in Clinton.

Will House Republicans ever stop flogging their conspiracy theories about Clinton and Benghazi? They most definitely will, and we know the date. It will be Nov. 9, the day after the election.

Follow Froma Harrop on Twitter @FromaHarrop. She can be reached at fharrop@gmail.com.

Photo: U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton comments on the just-released Benghazi report as she speaks at Galvanize, a learning community for technology, in Denver, U.S. June 28, 2016. REUTERS/Rick Wilking

Rep. Gowdy Says He’ll Bring Prosecutor’s Focus, Fairness To Benghazi Probe

Rep. Gowdy Says He’ll Bring Prosecutor’s Focus, Fairness To Benghazi Probe

By Ali Watkins, McClatchy Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON — Rep. Trey Gowdy’s got a late-night habit.

“He eats a ridiculously lot of pizza,” said Rep. Jason Chaffetz, a Republican from Utah. “Even if he goes out and has dinner, he’s got to have his late-night pie. I don’t know how he does it.”

It’s a tasty vice for the South Carolina congressman, even as he displays a distaste for national politics while his profile rises inside Republican ranks.

Since his election to Congress in 2010, Gowdy has been known inside the Washington Beltway less for his politics than for his hair, a sometimes silvery tangle that Buzzfeed once dubbed “the most confusing hair in Congress.”

But the Greenville, S.C., native has found a springboard to possible Washington stardom — whether wanted or not — with his appointment last spring as chairman of a special House of Representatives select panel investigating the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya. The U.S. ambassador to Libya, Christopher Stevens, and three other Americans were killed when militants raided the compound.

Despite fierce partisan tension over an issue that has been a go-to political pinata for Republicans to bash the Obama administration, Gowdy appears to have placated the Republicans and mollified some Democrats. He has employed a quiet, nonpartisan approach that likely hails from his days as a federal prosecutor.

“I haven’t been there that long, but none of us has seen somebody rise so fast,” Chaffetz said. “It’s a unique combination of his ability to cogently articulate a pattern of questions or to make a case on the floor of the House.”

Gowdy, who turns 50 this week, decided in 2010 to challenge six-term GOP incumbent congressman Bob Inglis. He won an upset victory in the primary and then went on to win the general election for the Palmetto State’s 4th Congressional District seat.

His reputation on Capitol Hill grew after the attack on the Benghazi consulate. As a member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, he took a tough, confrontational approach to witnesses during the panel’s initial investigation of the incident, much like the style he favored in South Carolina courtrooms.

“He was a commanding presence … when he went in the courtroom, he was prepared, he knew exactly what he was going to do. He took control,” said Barry Barnette, who took over the post of South Carolina’s 7th Circuit solicitor after serving as Gowdy’s deputy. “There’s nobody tougher than him.”

It’s standard practice on Capitol Hill to savor the flurry of attention that surrounds partisan issues, particularly one such as Benghazi, which has triggered multiple investigations and hearings. The results, however, have been mixed at best for Republicans hoping to find some political advantage to use against the Democrats in the way the administration responded to the attack.

Indeed, the Republican-led House Intelligence Committee approved a report earlier this month that could not pinpoint any intelligence failures on the part of the administration, a contention that Republican critics have been trying to press since the attack occurred.

Still, Gowdy’s new panel, created by House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), will begin more public hearings on Benghazi next month when Congress returns from its lengthy summer recess. Asked to talk about the committee, though, Gowdy declined.

“I didn’t talk about my investigations when I was a DA,” he said curtly. “There’ll be a time and a place.”

“Trey is making a good effort to work in a collegial way and in a consultative way, and I think he’ll continue to do that,” said Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), who reluctantly accepted a position as a minority member of the committee.

His praise for Gowdy is notable, given that the longtime House Intelligence Committee member was one of the more outspoken Democrats who ridiculed the creation of the panel in the first place.
Even Republican friends, such as South Carolina’s junior senator, Tim Scott, say politics does not come naturally to Gowdy.

“Trey is Trey,” Scott said. “He ultimately has a desire for getting things accomplished, and that means that his first objective isn’t to be the best example of the Republican Party. … He just doesn’t have a desire for politics.”

For his part, Gowdy insists his investigation of Benghazi will be straightforward, and that whatever partisanship surrounds the controversy, “it’s bigger to me than politics.”

“People would rather see a sermon than hear one,” he said. “I can talk about the need to be fair. I can talk about the need to be inclusive … or I can prove it to you. I would rather prove it to you.”

While determined to avoid the national stage, his aggressive tactics, smooth demeanor, and boyish camaraderie with House colleagues have polished his profile.

“You combine that with his Southern drawl and bad hair and it’s a winning combination,” Chaffetz joked.

Friends, however, say that Gowdy makes it no secret that he misses home and if given the choice, he’d take a courtroom over Congress any day.

“I miss the rules, the fairness,” Gowdy said. “The fact that there’s a referee. And there is no referee in politics.”

But he has chosen to stick around and seek a third term this fall, despite insisting he wouldn’t keep the office longer than two terms. The reason is Scott, a former member of the House who was named last year to fill the unexpired term of former Republican Sen. Jim DeMint.

“The thought of being around and helping someone like Tim be successful in the United States Senate. … He is the reason,” Gowdy said.

Photo: House GOP via Flickr

Interested in U.S. politics? Sign up for our daily email newsletter!

House Benghazi Committee Wants $3.3 Million For Latest Investigation

House Benghazi Committee Wants $3.3 Million For Latest Investigation

House Republicans still consumed by uncovering a Benghazi scandal now plan to spend up to $3.3 million to investigate the 2012 attack, according to a document obtained by USA Today from House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA).

According to the document, $2.2 million will go to the seven Republicans serving on the select committee, and just over $1 million will go to the five Democrats.

The investigation is the latest attempt to unearth the conspiracy that the GOP claims the Obama administration — specifically President Barack Obama and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton — orchestrated in the wake of the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya in September 2012. Over the past two years, Republicans have launched seven investigations to prove criminal wrongdoing on the administration’s part, but their efforts have been unsuccessful. The GOP’s failure to prove its claims has already cost taxpayers millions of dollars. Meanwhile, Democrats argue that Republicans are using the tragic event for their party’s own political gain.

House Republicans are now planning to spend more for their next investigation than many other key House committees receive in a year. The House Veterans Affairs Committee, which comprises 25 lawmakers and is investigating the widespread problems related to the Department of Veterans Affairs, was granted a budget of only $3 million. The House Ethics Committee, too, has a budget of only $3 million.

Also, as USA Today points out, because the Benghazi select committee was actually formed in May, its full-year budget would exceed $5 million, which is greater than the $4.4 million budget granted to the House Intelligence Committee.

Representative Trey Gowdy (R-SC), who heads the select committee, argues that the budget is necessary because the Benghazi panel will require more resources — like greater staffing and travel means — than other committees. Those resources will, however, be used by Gowdy and Republicans to re-ask all the same questions that have already been answered in previous Benghazi probes. As the Huffington Post notes, the three questions essential to Gowdy’s investigation have already come up in previous Benghazi inquiries:

1. “Why was security lacking during the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks in the U.S.?”
2. “Why weren’t military units moving to support consulate personnel?”
3. “Why were references to ‘terrorist’ and ‘attacks’ edited out of the Obama administration’s talking points?”

Additionally, Gowdy has said he would like to know why the U.S. was still in Benghazi at the time of the attack, and exactly where the president was on the night of the attack; these, too, have already been asked and answered.

While Gowdy and the six other Republicans serving on the committee question the Obama administration’s role in Benghazi, they ignore that just a year before the Benghazi attack, Secretary Clinton warned that GOP-backed cuts to the U.S. State Department would be “detrimental to America’s national security.” Still, in June 2011, Republicans — two of whom, Reps. Jim Jordan (OH) and Martha Roby (AL), now serve on Gowdy’s panel — voted in favor of a bill that would have limited the use of funds to support NATO operations in Libya. That same month, House Republicans — including Gowdy and the five other GOP lawmakers on the committee — also blocked a bill that would have authorized the limited use of U.S. Armed Forces in Libya.

In 2012, Republicans proposed cuts to the Obama administration’s requested embassy security budget, and in 2013 — even in the midst of their Benghazi outcry — House Republicans again backed decreased funding for the State Department’s Worldwide Security Program.

Despite their refusal to support the cost of increasing U.S. security overseas, Republicans today have no problem spending additional millions to re-investigate the type of attack that such security could have prevented. If Gowdy and his fellow Republicans’ focus is truly on ensuring that an attack like the one that occurred in Benghazi never happens again, perhaps it would be more fiscally responsible to invest the millions of dollars currently going to the Benghazi committee somewhere that could actually help prepare for or even prevent future attacks.

Of course, this investment would force the House GOP to go silent on an issue it believes could stain Democrats ahead of the 2014 midterm elections, and Clinton before the 2016 presidential election. After all, those are the true objectives of this expensive, taxpayer-funded investigation.

Photo: House GOP via Flickr