CNN LIVE EVENT SPECIAL Benghazi Hearings Aired 6 30p-9 00p ET Aired October 22, 2015 - 18 30 ET
CNN LIVE EVENT SPECIAL Benghazi Hearings Aired 6 30p-9 00p ET Aired October 22, 2015 - 18 30 ET
GOWDY: Welcome back, Madam Secretary. The chair will now recognize the gentleman from Illinois,
Mr. Roskam.
ROSKAM: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Madam Secretary, the other side of the aisle has admonished the Republicans for not having a theory.
And let me tell you a little bit of a theory that I've developed from my reading and research and
listening today.
And it's this: that you initiated a policy to put the United States into Libya as the secretary of state, and
you overcame a number of obstacles within the administration to advocate for military action. And you
were successful in doing that.
Ultimately, the decision was the president's, as you acknowledge. But you were the prime mover. You
were the one that was driving, you were even contemplating something called the "Clinton doctrine".
And you were concerned about image. You were concerned about credit, which is not something that is
unfamiliar to people in public life. But then I think something happened.
And my theory is that after Gadhafi's death, and essentially, a victory lap, then I think your interest
waned, and I think your attention waned. And I think the -- the e-mails that Mrs. Brooks put forth, you
had a -- you had an answer, and that was, "look, I got a lot of information from a lot of different
places."
But I think you basically gave a victory lap -- sort of a "mission accomplished" quote in October 30th,
2011 in the Washington Post. This is what you said, and this is very declarative. "We set into motion a
policy that was on the right side of history, on the right side of our values, on the right side of our
strategic interests in the region."
It has all of the feel of a victory lap. But there was a problem. And the problem, Madam Secretary, was
that there were storm clouds that were gathering. And the storm clouds that were gathering was a
deteriorating security situation in Benghazi.
And you had a lot to lose if Benghazi unraveled. If Libya unraveled, you had a lot to lose, based on the
-- the victory lap, based on the Sunday shows, based on the favorable accolades that were coming. If it
went the wrong direction, it would be on you. And if it
was stable and it was the right direction, you -- you were the beneficiary of that.
So the question is, how is it possible that these urgent requests that came in -- how did they not break
through to the very upper levels of your inner circle? People who are here today, people who served
you?
How did those requests from two ambassadors, Ambassador Cretz and Ambassador Stevens, that came
in on these dates, June 7th, June -- July 19th, August 2nd and March 28th, all of 2012 -- how is it
possible that those didn't break through?
You told us that that wasn't your job, basically. You said, "I'm not responsible." But here's my theory. I
think that this is what was going on: that to admit a 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?
CLINTON: Congressman, look, we knew that Libya's transition from the brutal dictatorship of
Gadhafi, which basically destroyed or 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 -- and I
will speak for myself, I absolutely did not forget about Libya after Gadhafi fell.
CLINTON: 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
2014, we had assisted in destroying the last of Gadhafi's chemical weapons. We were combating 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 help 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 went 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 de-militarization, 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 responsibility for security. I took
responsibility for what happened in Benghazi -ROSKAM: What does that mean when you say, "I took responsibility?" When Mr. Westmoreland asked
you that question you said, what, contracting and so forth. So when you say you are responsible for
something, Madam Secretary, what does that mean? If you're responsible, 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?
CLINTON: Well, I was just telling you some of the many related issues I was working on to try to help
the Libyan people make...
ROSKAM: What's your responsibility to Benghazi? That's my question?
CLINTON: 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.
ROSKAM: 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. There were
dismissed.
CLINTON: Well, that's just not true, Congressman. I know -ROSKAM: Madam secretary, they didn't get through. It didn't help them. Were those responded to? Is
that your testimony today?
CLINTON: Many were responded to. There were affirmative responses to a number of requests for
additional security...
ROSKAM: And you laid this on Chris Stevens, didn't you?
CLINTON: And both...
ROSKAM: Because he said -- 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 is supposed to be secure, because Chris
Stevens knows how to pull the levers? Is that your testimony?
CLINTON: Ambassadors are the ones who pass on security recommendations and requests. That's true
throughout the world.
(CROSSTALK)
ROSKAM: And when he does, and they're not responded to what is his remedy if they're not responded
to? What is his remedy if it's no?
CLINTON: As I testified earlier, he was in regular e-mail contact with some of my closest advisers.
ROSKAM: So hit resend, is that it?
CLINTON: He was in regular e-mail contact and cable contact with a...
ROSKAM: Cables didn't get through. You created an environment, Madam Secretary, where the cables
couldn't get through, now -CLINTON: Well, that is inaccurate, cables as we have testified -- ROSKAM: They didn't get through to
you. They didn't break into your inner circle. That was your testimony earlier. You can't 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 all -- it
all stops at the security professionals...
CLINTON: Well, that's not what I -- Congressman, that's not that's not what I was saying. I think we've
tried to clarify that, you know, millions of cables come in, they're -- they're processed and sent to the
appropriate offices and personnel with respect to specific...
ROSKAM: They didn't get through. They didn't make any difference. They couldn't break into 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.
But 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 even braver than you acknowledged.
In January 2013, this is what you said to Congress, "Nobody knew the dangers or the opportunities
better than Chris. During the first revolution and then 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.
Because he understood that it was pivotal for America to be represented in that place at that time."
Secretary Clinton, I think you should've 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 we implored us to
give him. I and my colleagues were distracted by other matters, and opportunities, and ambitions, we
breached our fundamental duty to mitigate his danger and secure his safety. And that of Glenn Doherty,
Sean Smith, and Tyrone Woods. That would be more accurate, wouldn't you say, Secretary Clinton?
CLINTON: Of course, I would not say that.
And I think that it's a disservice for you to make that statement, Congressman. And it's a...
ROSKAM: Who does it disserve?
CLINTON: Well, it is a disservice of how hard the people who are given the responsibility of making
including making the walls higher, adding concertina wire, laying barbed wire.
That project was completed.
In March 2012, they asked to construct two extra guard positions.
That was completed.
In April 2012, they needed help from experts and technical security. And by May, a special team visited
to enhance security equipment and security lighting.
In June 2012, following the IED incident, immediately a regional team was sent to enhance the
perimeter, and additional funding was approved for more guards.
In July 2012, they said that they need a minimum of three American Security Officers in Benghazi.
From then on through July, August and September they always had three, four or five American DS
agents overseeing the expanded contingent of Libyan guards on site.
Those are just some of the requests and the affirmative responses, Congresswoman, that were provided
specifically for Benghazi.
DUCKWORTH: Thank you.
We -- we know that short of putting people in bunkers and never allowing them outside of embassy
compounds, and -- we're going to have some sort of threat to our Diplomatic Personnel Security.
I mean, obviously, it was not enough. What I'd like to know is, in light of that, what efforts have
been put in to -- to provide for Contingency Operations (ph), especially for known potentially volatile
periods in the calendar year.
September 11th comes through every year. 2016, September 11th is probably going to be an especially
volatile time period.
So, can you talk a little bit about would you have done, and what you put into place and any difficulties
you may have come across in coordinating with the DoD, intelligence agencies, other -- across the
Government. Is there a...
I know this is not a secure room, so we -- we can't talk about things that are rated secret, but, you know
September 11th is coming. Part of that week are we moving aircraft carriers nearby, are we putting and
air wing on a 6 hour leash, with, you know, one lift of aircraft on a 2 hour leash? What are we doing?
Do we have FAST teams and FEST teams gearing up ready to go? What is going on, in light of the
lessons learned at Benghazi, and what did -- what did you personally direct -- to happen, especially at
your level of inter- agency cooperation?
CLINTON: An excellent question, and 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 ARB had been completed. And a September
2013 Inspector General's Report noted that the ARB 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 DoD 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 High Threat (ph) course. We've expanded the Foreign Affairs Counter Threat
course so that the skills are shared by not just the Diplomatic Security agents but people like Chris
Stevens and Sean Smith, as well. We've also been working hard to up the inter-agency cooperation.
The Inter-Agency Security (ph) 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, DoD 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 UN and others who were stationed in
Afghanistan.
And -- so we're trying to stay in very close touch between the State Department and DoD.
In that case, Secretary Gates actually 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 DoD is trying hard to
think about how particularly in north Africa and the Middle East, they can respond. Because, you know,
one of the claims that was made that was -- was proven to be untrue was that DOD withheld sending air
support. 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 they better 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, you know, two
years, more -- I guess more than two years. So I can't speak directly, but I know that this was part of the
important work that was underway when I left.
DUCKWORTH: You spoke about -- thank you -- you spoke about you making personal phone calls to
ask for help from the heads of local government. 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.
So when an embassy comes under attack, especially after this Benghazi attack, from this time forward,
do ambassadors, do they need to call you to ask for help from other agencies of the U.S. government?
Or do they have the ability if there's a DOD -- if there is a CIA or DOD force nearby, a Marine FAST
team for example, can the ambassador -- does the ambassador have to come through security, or do
they need to call you to have you call for that? How does that work?
CLINTON: No, and there's an example out of the Benghazi attack. There was a preexisting
understanding between the diplomatic compound and the CIA annex. And there was no need for
anybody at the compound to call Washington to alert the CIA annex. They immediately contacted the
CIA annex. And, you know, they sprang into action to try to come to the assistance of our team at the
compound.
So, there's -- we're trying to have more preexisting arrangements like that, and that goes to your
question. If there are assets in the region, how do we plan for contingencies so that they can be
immediately triggered and try 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
could get. We did get a surveillance plane above the location, but it took some time to get there. It had
to be diverted.
DUCKWORTH: I'm sorry. It was an unarmed drone. Correct? CLINTON: Yes, it was unarmed. It was
an unarmed...
DUCKWORTH: UAV.
CLINTON: ... yes, 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.
DUCKWORTH: Thank you.
I'm out of time, Mr. Chairman.
GOWDY: I thank the gentlelady from Illinois.
The chair would now recognize the gentlewoman from Indiana.
BROOKS: Thank you, Madam Secretary.
I'm going to follow up on what the congresswoman from Illinois is discussing, which is 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 fact that in the wake of the 1998 bombing attacks in
Nairobi and Dar es Salaam, Congress passed something referred to as SECCA -- the Secure Embassy
Construction and Counterterrorism Act, which requires the secretary of state to issue a waiver if, under
two conditions, if U.S. government personnel work in separate facilities; or if U.S. overseas 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 CIA annex after the
temporary mission compound was authorized through December of 2012? And did you sign that
waiver, Madam Secretary?
CLINTON: I think that the CIA annex, I had no responsibility for. So I cannot speak to what the
decisions were with respect to the CIA annex. That is something that I know other committees have...
BROOKS: But you acknowledge you were responsible for the temporary mission compound?
CLINTON: Yes, of course. But you put them together and I just wanted to clarify that I had no
responsibility for the CIA 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 very difficult, if not impossible, to do that in the immediate aftermath of a conflict situation.
The temporary mission in Benghazi was set up to try to find out what was going on 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 would 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. And we
made extensive and constant improvements to the physical security, some of which I've mentioned
before.
BROOKS: Madam Secretary, thank you.
So it is obvious that a waiver was not signed and you've given a defense as to why a waiver was not
signed. And it was temporary because it was made up. It was something different. The compound was
-- had never become official. And 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
involves protecting our diplomats and other U.S. government officials who travel there. So if the
Libyan people didn't have a government capable of providing security, and we didn't have 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 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 the ambassador. Less than four months later, he was killed. But the
number of violent attacks that occurred during that summer are off the charts. They're against
westerners.
I'd like you to refer to tab six. 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 talking about violent attacks like everyday robberies,
burglaries, holdups. 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 major incidents -- bombings
on police departments, the courts. Think about this. If you're in the city of Washington, D.C. or
Boston, and we're now over in Benghazi, and all of these types of bombings are happening and these
security incidents are happening. There are hundreds more actually I could talk with you about, but
frankly I don't have time.
I hope I've painted the picture because I'm baffled. You sent Chris Stevens to Libya and to Benghazi.
And granted, he never raised the flag and said, "I want out." And granted, he never said, "Shut down
Benghazi." And I understand and appreciate that you deferred to him, but you also, Madam Secretary -we have no record of you ever talking to him, that -- you never talked to him personally after May of
2012 when you swore him in as our ambassador.
Am I wrong? Did you ever talk to Ambassador Stevens when all of this was going on in the hotbed of
Libya?
CLINTON: Well...
BROOKS: That is a yes or no question, Madam Secretary. I'm sorry. Did you ever personally speak to
Ambassador Stevens after -- we don't know the answer. Did you ever personally speak to him after you
swore him in in May?
CLINTON: ...I believe...
BROOKS: Yes or no, please.
CLINTON: ...yes, I believe I did. But I...
BROOKS: And when was that?
CLINTON: ...I -- I don't recall. And I want to clarify for the record that this document is about all of
Libya, not just Benghazi.
BROOKS: Absolutely (ph).
CLINTON: I don't want anybody to be...
BROOKS: No, 77 are about Benghazi.
CLINTON: ...misled, and -- you know, Congresswoman, look.
I appreciate -- and -- and I really do -- the -- the passion and the intensity of your feelings about this.
We have diplomatic facilities in war zones. We have ambassadors that we send to places that have been
bombed and attacked all the time.
BROOKS: And you're their boss.
We didn't know where he was. We didn't know whether he was alive. And it was shortly after that in the
evening when we found out that he was not.
SANCHEZ: Your chief of staff also explained to this committee that you were concerned the night of
the attacks, not only form the safety of your team in Benghazi, but also about your teams in Tripoli and
elsewhere. She said this about you. Quote: "She was very concerned. She was also very determined that
whatever needed to be done was done and she was worried. She was worried not only about our team
on the ground in Benghazi, but worried about our teams that were on the ground in Libya and our
teams on the ground in a number of places given what we had seen unfold in Egypt."
Can you explain some of the context of the evening and why you were concerned, not just about what
was happening in Benghazi, but the risks that Americans were in elsewhere?
CLINTON: Well, that's exactly right. I was quite concerned about Tripoli because we didn't know if
there would be coordinated attacks. We were still trying to gather information about who was behind
what happened in Benghazi. We -- in the course of the conversations with our team on the ground in
Tripoli began to explore whether they should move from where they were in the place that was
operating as our embassy at that time to a more secure location. There were lots of considerations about
what to do to keep our team in Tripoli safe.
And then as I've testified earlier, we were very concerned about the impact of the video sparking unrest,
attacks, violence in a wide swathe of countries. It turned out that that was well-founded concern, as we
saw the attacks and protests across the region, all the way to India and Indonesia.
So there was a lot of effort being put into not only doing the immediate tasks before us in Benghazi,
and doing whatever we needed to do to keep our people in Tripoli safe, but beginning to talk through
and prepare for what might happen elsewhere.
SANCHEZ: I want to switch line of questioning for just a second. I've got a couple minutes left.
Following the attacks on Benghazi, but before the Accountability Review Board completed its work,
you did a number of things to evaluate and improve security at overseas posted. And this is even before
the ARB had finished its investigation and issued its finding and recommendations. I know you've
mentioned them multiple times today, but some of my colleagues appear to have amnesia about what
you really accomplished. So can you tell me about some of the steps that you took to
implement in the State Department even before the the ARB completed its work?
CLINTON: Well, although the ARB had not completed its own investigation, clearly in the aftermath
of Benghazi, we were doing our own evaluation of what had happened, what we knew about these
circumstances and what we needed to do to try to get ahead of any other potential problems.
One of the decisions that I made and discussed with General Dempsey and Secretary Panetta was how
we could get more assistance from the Department of Defense, and in particular we sent out teams to
the high-threat posts that we had to get evaluations from those on the ground so that we would have a
better idea of where there might be necessary upgrades to security that we could immediately try to act
upon. So we did begin a conversation with the department of defense which -- I think it's fair to say,
and as Admiral Mullen himself testified -- sees the scope of the American diplomatic presence as
beyond the capacity of the Defense Department to be responsive to.
CLINTON: So we had to begin to, first, look at the high-threat posts. Then we had to take the second
layer about those that we think could be come more dangerous going forward, and really begin this
process. Which, as I told Congresswoman Duckworth, I'm confident is still continuing because, you
know, we -- we can't get behind the curve in being able to predict where there might be problems in the
future.
We had a perfect example of that in -- in Yemen. You know, we kept the embassy open in Sanaa under
some very difficult and dangerous circumstances for a very long time. We even moved it physically to a
more well-defensed position. Thankfully, we have not had incidents resulting in American diplomats
being killed, but it was a constant challenge to us. And there are many other examples, like the one that
Congressman Smith has raised twice, Peshawar, which is an incredibly dangerous high-threat post.
So, what we tried to do is to close as best we could the relationship between State and DOD, so
wherever DOD could help us, they would be prepared to factor that into their planning. I was very
grateful for their responsiveness.
SANCHEZ: We're grateful for yours. Thank you very much.
I yield back.
GOWDY: The gentlelady yields back.
The chair would now recognize the gentlelady from Alabama, Ms. Roby.
ROBY: Secretary Clinton, I want to follow up on the questions about the night of the attack and
decisions made then. You wrote in your book,"Hard Choices," that you were directing the State
Department response the night of September 11th, 2012, but you also stated that you left your office on
the night of the attack and went to your home in northwest Washington because you said you knew the
next few days were going to be taxing and the department was going to be looking to you.
I want to talk about a few things. Do you have a skiff (ph) in your home?
CLINTON: Yes, I did.
ROBY: OK. And who else was at your home? Were you alone?
CLINTON: I was alone, yes.
ROBY: The whole night?
CLINTON: Yes, the whole night.
(LAUGHTER)
ROBY: I don't know why that's funny. I mean, did you have any in-person briefings? I don't find it
funny at all.
CLINTON: I'm sorry -- a little note of levity at 7:15, noted for the record.
ROBY: Well, I mean, the reason I say it's not funny is because it well into the night when our folks on
the ground were still in danger. So I don't think it's funny to ask you if you were alone the whole night.
CLINTON: Well, Congresswoman, you asked if I had a skiff. I had secure phones. I had other
equipment that kept me in touch with the State Department at all times. I did not sleep all night. I was
very much focused on what we were doing.
ROBY: Who was at your office when you left? Was Cheryl Mills, your chief of staff, still at the office
when you left?
CLINTON: I don't remember. I know that a lot of my staff were there.
ROBY: I'm going to go through and name them. We'll see if you remember.
Jake Sullivan, was he still there?
CLINTON: When -- yes, they were all there when I left. They were all there.
ROBY: OK. Victoria Nuland was there when you left?
CLINTON: When I -- when I left, everyone was there.
ROBY: Philip Ranas (ph) was there?
CLINTON: I can -- all I -- I can give you a blanket answer. When I left...
ROBY: No, I'm going to ask specifics.
Was Patrick Kennedy there?
CLINTON: I'm sure he was.
ROBY: Was Philip Ranas (ph) there?
CLINTON: I don't know. I don't know whether he was.
ROBY: How about Stephen Mull?
CLINTON: I'm sure that the core team at the State Department was still there.
ROBY: Beth Jones? CLINTON: I'm sure she was.
ROBY: And Bill Burns and Thomas Nides?
CLINTON: I have no specific recollection of any of the names you've given me, because when I left, I
knew I would stay in touch and I do not know how long anybody else stayed at the State Department.
ROBY: What -- what time did you learn that Sean Smith had died?
CLINTON: I think it was late in the evening. I don't know exactly when.
ROBY: What did you discuss?
CLINTON: I'm sorry? What?
ROBY: What specifically did you discuss with the president?
CLINTON: Well, I don't usually talk about my discussions with the president, but I can tell you we
talked about what had happened during the day. I thanked him for his very strong support because he
made it absolutely clear that everyone was supposed to be doing all they could, particularly DOD, to
assist us wherever possible. And I'm sure I thanked him for that.
ROBY: What did he say to you?
CLINTON: Again, I don't talk about the conversations I have with the president. We talked about the
events of the day and his determination to do everything he could to try to help our people in Benghazi.
ROBY: Did you meet with Secretary Panetta?
CLINTON: No, I did not.
ROBY: Did you speak to Secretary Panetta?
CLINTON: The next day.
ROBY: Not on the 11th?
CLINTON: No.
ROBY: OK. Did you talk with General Dempsey?
CLINTON: The next morning, I did.
ROBY: So you did not meet with him or talk with him on the 11th?
CLINTON: Congresswoman, it wasn't necessary. Everybody was doing everything they could think of
to do. It's one of the reasons I sat in on the civets (ph).
ROBY: I'm just trying to figure out if you did or you didn't.
CLINTON: Well, I'm telling you. I sat in the civets (ph) that Congresswoman Sanchez was asking me
about because I wanted to talk to the operational people and they were represented on that civets (ph).
They were the ones who were carrying out the orders that they received from the president on down.
ROBY: What about Petraeus? When did you speak to him?
CLINTON: I spoke to Petraeus that afternoon, because I knew that we had an agreement with the CIA
annex, and I spoke with him about an hour after finding out about the attack and after gathering
information about what we thought was happening in Benghazi.
ROBY: Did you -- your surviving agents were evacuated to Tripoli the morning of the 12th. Did you
talk to the survivors either that night or once they arrived in Tripoli?
CLINTON: We did not speak to them directly. We obviously made arrangements for them to be safely
evacuated, and then to be transported to a hospital facility that we thought was safe from any potential
attacks.
ROBY: Did you talk to them the next day?
CLINTON: No.
ROBY: Did you talk to them later that week?
CLINTON: No, I did not.
ROBY: Did you talk to them when they first got back to the United States?
CLINTON: I did not talk to them until they had had an opportunity to be debriefed and to provide
information that would help us understand what happened; help the intelligence community and help
the FBI as they were trying to build their case.
ROBY: How would it have harmed the case that they were trying to build for you, secretary of state,
just to check in on their well being?
CLINTON: I did check on their well being.
ROBY: No, personally.
CLINTON: Well, I did personally talk with the people who were taking care of them, transporting
them...
ROBY: Again, the survivors -- when did you talk to the survivors?
CLINTON: I talked to the survivors when they came back to the United States. And one who was for
many months in Walter Reed on the telephone. ROBY: OK.
(CROSSTALK)
ROBY: (inaudible) Panetta and Dempsey, you have stated that they were the decision-makers. But you
never spoke to them while your people were on the ground.
CLINTON: I'm sorry...
ROBY: I want to make sure this is clear. Panetta and Dempsey were the decision-makers when it came
to response. We've already talked about the FEST. So I'm not going to get back into that. But what I'm
trying to clarify is that they were the decision-makers. Your people were on the ground in harm's way
revolution was very challenging. And there I came under giant protests against the United States,
against me personally.
On a visit to the consulate in Alexandria, my team was pelted with tomatoes and shoes and other insults
hurled at us, which put a lot of pressure on the Diplomatic Security.
I obviously went to Tunis and worked hard to help support Tunisia. And they, as of now, seem as
though they are working toward some kind of resolution. I visited Beirut. I was in Jordan and in Turkey
numerous times during the uprising against Syria.
So I think that it's a long list and it's, by no means, a complete one.
SMITH: Thank you.
And let me just say that the line of questioning recently has been basically implying that you don't care.
OK? There's no other way to interpret what we just heard, is to say, oh, you didn't make this phone call,
you didn't talk -- well, what month, what day, what time? You know, did you really care? Did you visit
them three times or just two? OK?
The line of questioning is implying that you don't care. And there are two things that are troubling
about that. First of all, you do or you wouldn't be doing this. Or you wouldn't be representing the
people that you do and doing the jobs that you did.
But second of all, whether or not you care has nothing to do with learning what happened in Benghazi
and how to solve the problem. So all the while -- and I was chastised last time for claiming that the
majority was trying to be partisan, you know, then we got a recitation of your political back and forth
about how to talk about, you know, who should get credit for Libya, you know, being chastised for that.
But it is clear that they are trying to attack you personally. And I really wish that we could focus on the
issues instead of that. But to get into that level of questioning, I think is not helpful to this committee.
It's not even helpful to the Republicans, for that matter.
It's clear that you care. And I'll simply go back to where we've been a couple of times. Tell us again
how many embassies do we have in the world?
CLINTON: More than 270 countries we're represented in.
SMITH: Right. And on some level, the secretary of state, Secretary Kerry now, you before, is
responsible for all of them.
CLINTON: That's right.
SMITH: And how many personnel roughly?
CLINTON: Seventy thousand, between the State Department and USAID.
SMITH: And you're responsible for all of them as well.
CLINTON: That's true, Congressman.
SMITH: Can any human being on face of the planet protect every single one of them every second of
every day?
CLINTON: Well...
SMITH: That's a rhetorical question.
CLINTON: We can try. We can try.
And, Congressman, we have, as I just said, 270 consulates and embassies. We are represented in 194
countries. Some of them are very friendly to us, some of them are our adversaries.
But I do want to pick up on the point you're making because I really appreciate it very much,
Congressman.
I care very deeply about the people who serve our country. I worked with them. I knew them. I saw
them in action. On my last full day as secretary of state, we were able to hold a ceremony awarding the
five Diplomatic Security agents the highest award for heroism that the State Department has to offer.
We held it then because we wanted to be sure that the fifth man could be there because he had been in
the hospital for so long. And he was able to be there. I got a chance to meet their families. I got a
chance all at once, not just individually, but all together to thank them and commend them for their
heroism.
And I'll tell you, the agent who had been in the hospital all those months, as I was leaving he called me
over and he said, Secretary, please do everything you can to make sure I get to go back in the field.
And I told him I would. And it was one of the requests I made on the way out the door. He was
determined to go back to do what he could to protect our diplomats, to protect you when you travel.
And I was so struck then, as I had been so many times before, about the quality and the integrity and
the courage of those Americans who serve us, whether in uniform or out. I care very deeply about each
and every one of them.
SMITH: Thank you. And one other point to make. Do -- do you happen to know where the CIA
Director, General Petraeus, was when the second attack happened on the CIA and where he went?
CLINTON: No, I do not. I don't know where he was when I reached him and spoke with him.
SMITH: He was home operating out of a skiff. And after the attack he continued to operate out of that
skiff.
Which again, is why this would be a far more productive investigation if we actually had the CIA
Director and DoD instead of trying to pick apart every single solitary thing you've said or did during
the course of this -- sometimes even going before and after that.
If we actually were trying to get to the truth of this, we would have a broader array of people to talk to,
so that we could get there, instead of picking you apart at every -- every conceivable turn.
You know, we've -- we've gone back and forth. I just want to make -- make one other point.
Congressman Jordan, you know, I like you, I have a great deal of respect for you, but this whole going
back twice now to the some have implied that this was because of a video, somehow you just substitute
the word "some" for "I," and think that there's no difference, whatsoever, in that sentence. And that's -that's mind boggling.
I mean, and to badger over, and over, and over again. Why did you say it was because of the video?
Well, I didn't.
Why did you say it was because of the video? Well, I didn't.
Why did you say it was because of the video? You know?
I guess this could go on for another six or seven hours, but I think we all understand the English
language. And when you say some have implied, that means -- well, I guess that means that some have
implied. Some others have implied.
So, you know, it's just -- very frustrating.
I served on the Armed Services Committee with Mac Thornberry (ph), who's the Chairman of that
committee, and we disagree about a heck of a lot, but, you know, we have great arguments in that
committee. But it never, ever comes close to descending to this level.
Congress can, in fact, function. The House Armed Services Committee, under Buck McKeon's (ph)
leadership before him, under Mac Thornberry's leadership now, and all of the members of that
committee. They aggressively question administrative witnesses. And I've seen it. And we've gone back
and forth and done it.
But there is always an element of respect for the fact that we are all doing a very difficult job. You
know? And anyone across this dais who's been in a tough campaign knows what it's like to have every
single thing you say, every single thing you do, every look that is on your face, everything that you
wear picked apart.
It's not helpful. It's not helpful to the American public, and it's not helpful to the political process and it
is damn sure not helpful to the people who died in Benghazi. Or to their families.
So I hope we can do better, and I hope that we can be done with the repetitive badgering after nine and
a half hours. And I thank you for putting up with it for that long and for your service.
GOWDY: Gentleman yields back. The Chairman now recognizes the gentleman from Ohio, Mr.
Jordan.
JORDAN: Secretary Clinton, to get to the truth about Benghazi we need the complete record. Your emails are part of the record, and we believe the record might be incomplete. In part, because your
version of events surrounding your e-mail situation keeps changing.
Last month, on September 20th you said, "I'm being as transparent as possible, more transparent than
anybody else ever has been."
You didn't say more transparent than anybody. You said, more transparent than anybody else ever.
Now, my definition of transparency includes being honest and straight forward. And being honest and
straight forward right from the start, right from the get-go. So let's look at a few things that you said
here in the last few months. On March 10th, you said this -- you provided all work related emails, erring on the side of anything that might be a federal record. In September, you revised that
statement, and you said Mr. Blumenthal had some e-mails that you didn't.
Of course, the revised statement was after we interviewed Mr. Blumenthal about Benghazi and found
out that we didn't receive from you and the State Department the same information we received from
him.
In March, you said it was your practice to e-mail government officials on their .gov accounts. Later,
you revised that statement and you said there was a fraction of e-mails with work-related information
sent to government officials on their personal accounts.
SMITH: I'm sorry, what does this have to do with what happened in Benghazi?
JORDAN: Of course...
SMITH: When are we going to get there?
GOWDY: The gentleman is not recognized. The gentleman from Ohio controls the time.
JORDAN: This is -- and it has everything to do, because we want the record, so we can get to the truth,
and maybe if the gentleman -- if the gentleman from Washington would have shown up for more than
just one hour of one interview, he might know a little more about the situation as well, and the lack of
getting the record.
Of course, this second statement, the revised statement, was after this committee had contacted Huma
Abedin, Jake Sullivan, Philippe Reines, asking for their personal accounts, which of course you knew
would mean we would get their e-mails.
And that first statement in March was not accurate. In March, you said no classified information was
sent or received on your personal accounts. You later revised your statement and said no information
marked classified was sent or received on your personal account.
And once again, your revised statement was after the inspector general for the intelligence community
had examined your e-mails and determined that, yes, some indeed were classified.
Secretary Clinton, seems like there's a pattern, pattern of changing your story. In March you say one
thing, the truth comes out, weeks and months later, you say something else.
That's not being the most transparent person ever. That's not even being transparent.
So if your story about your e-mails keeps changing, then how can we accept your statement that you've
turned over all work related e- mails and all e-mails about Libya? CLINTON: Well, Congressman, I
might be related to anything, but they also went through every single e-mail.
JORDAN: That's not answering the question. Search terms means "terms". What terms did you use...
CLINTON: I did -- I did not...
JORDAN: And what were the date parameters? What -- what date did you start, what was the end date,
and the e-mails in between that we're going to look at?
CLINTON: Well, Congressman, I asked my attorneys to oversee the process. I did not look over their
shoulder. I did not dictate how they would do it. I did not ask what they were doing and how they made
their determinations (ph).
JORDAN: So you don't know? You don't know what terms they used to determine which ones were
your e-mails and which ones the State Department got, and therefore we might get?
CLINTON: You know, The State Department had between 90 and 95 percent of all the ones that were
work related. They were already on the system. In fact, this committee got e-mails...
JORDAN: I'm not asking about those. I'm asking about the 62,000 that were exclusively on your
system.
CLINTON: ...90 to 95 percent of all work-related e-mails were already in the State Department's
system.
JORDAN: We -- we know the National Archive has -- Secretary Clinton, we know the National
Archive has said 1,250 were clearly personal. No way we should have -- no way you should have sent
them to the State Department.
And then we also know that 15, you missed, because we got those from Mr. Blumenthal when he came
in -- was -- was -- for his deposition.
CLINTON: Thank you.
JORDAN: So if you -- you missed 15 you should have given us, and you gave us 1,250 that -- not we
say, but the national archivist says -- you never should have turned over. You erred on both sides. So
again, that's why we want to know the terms. Because if you've made a mistake both ways, you may to
made -- might have made more mistakes. We don't know.
CLINTON: Well, first of all, you had nine hours with one of my attorneys. And since I think the
Democrats just finally released the transcript, I haven't had a chance...
JORDAN: And I -- and I specifically asked Ms. Mills. I did.
CLINTON: ...well...
JORDAN: I did. I asked her about this and she gave me the -- basically the same kind of answer you're
giving me.
CLINTON: There was nothing marked classified on my e-mails, either sent or received. And I want to
respond...
JORDAN: You used the write term there. Used "marked". That's the one -- that's what you -- you used
the revised statement there.
CLINTON: ...well -- but that's -- well, Congressman, there was a lot of confusion because many -many Americans have no idea how the classification process works. And therefore I wanted to make it
clear that there is a system within our government, certainly within the State Department... JORDAN:
(inaudible) one more question (inaudible).
CLINTON: ...where material that is thought to be classified is marked such, so that people have the
opportunity to know how they are supposed to be handling those materials...
JORDAN: I got -- I got one second.
CLINTON: ...and that's why it became clearer, I believe, to say that nothing was marked classified at
the time I sent or received it.
JORDAN: All right. All I -- all I know is that's different than what you said in March.
I got one last question. The FBI's got your server, they're doing a forensic review of your server. They
may -- they may -- recover e-mails that you deleted from your system.
So, I didn't say this, you said it. And you just said it a little bit ago, too, transparency. You said you
were the -- more transparent than anybody else ever. So I'm going to ask you just one simple question.
If the FBI finds some of these e-mails that might be deleted, as they're reviewing your server, will you
agree to allow a neutral third party -- like a retired federal judge -- to review any e-mails deleted to
determine if any of them are relevant to our investigation?
CLINTON: Congressman, as you point out, there is a security inquiry being conducted by the
Department of Justice and I trust that they will do whatever is appropriate to reach their conclusions.
JORDAN: But you would, as the most transparent person ever, would you commit to saying whatever
they find, I want a retired federal judge to evaluate that and look and see if we need some of that
information to get to the truth?
CLINTON: I have been releasing my e-mails to the public. That is transparency. And as I stand by my
statement, so far as I know in the modern era, I am the only government official who's ever done that.
JORDAN: Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Secretary.
GOWDY: The gentleman's time is expired.
The chair will now recognize the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Westmoreland.
CLINTON: Mm-hmm.
WESTMORELAND: There was not a State Department person on that plane. There were four GRS
agents and two TDY DOD people and an interpreter.
CLINTON: Well, that -- that is exactly right. And that's why the cooperation and coordination that I've
been talking about with Congress...
(CROSSTALK)
WESTMORELAND: From all the information we've got, Mr. Glen Doherty is the one that said, "We
are going down to help our brothers." And he got permission from the chief of station to go down there,
and he took three other GRS agents and then he got the two DOD guys that wanted to go, volunteered
to go. They took an interpreter. They chartered the plane and they went down there. It was not a State
Department deal.
And in fact, if you want to know the truth, the only option that the State Department had was the FEST
team, as we -- you and I talked about before. Now, you've mentioned that it was for rebuilding. And
I've got the State Department thing here about the FEST, and I would read it, but it's going to take up
too much of my time, but there's no anything in -- it doesn't say anything about rebuilding anything. It
says that it's for crisis management expertise; time-sensitive information; planning for contingency
operations; hostage negotiating expertise, which we thought at one time that the ambassador may have
been kidnapped; reach-back to Washington, D.C. agencies; and specialized communications
capabilities.
Now, that's what it says on the State Department website. And you know, that would have been the one
thing that you could have done to get people on the way over there to help those folks that were still in
an ongoing battle that was ready to go, sitting there. But you know what? It never got -- that plane
never got out of the hangar. Those people never got assembled. And we've got a chain of e-mails that
the first recommendation came back is the FEST, from your own people. Then the FBI told your
employees that the best way to handle the situation was to send the FEST team, and that was the way it
had always been done.
So did you make the decision not to send the FEST team?
CLINTON: Well, Congressman, first let me say that it's important to recognize that our deputy chief of
mission, Greg Hicks, was fully engaged in helping to put together the team that flew from Tripoli to
Benghazi. And we were very grateful that the CIA station chief and his colleagues were behind that.
And we were, you know, very appreciative.
They, as you know, didn't get there in time because the attack on the compound was very swift. It was
over in less than an hour. But they -- they did help eventually to evacuate and it was just an additional
tragedy that Mr. Doherty lost his life in attempting to stave off the attack on the CIA annex.
With regard to the FEST recommendation, everything you read was no longer applicable to our
compound in Benghazi. Unlike the FEST team responding in Nairobi, where we were going to have an
ongoing embassy presence -- that was our embassy -- the FEST team was very much involved in
helping to stand up the communications and literally begin to get the embassy function again despite
the fact that Americans and many of the locally employed staff had been murdered in the terrorist
attack.
So it was our judgment that the FEST team was not needed, was not appropriate for Benghazi.
WESTMORELAND: But you really didn't know what was going on at that point, when you could have
pulled the trigger...
(CROSSTALK)
CLINTON: Well, we did know. We knew -- we knew from the reports we were getting back from our
diplomatic security officers that they had had to abandon the facility; that it had been set on fire. And it
was -- they were forced to take refuge with our CIA colleagues at the CIA annex. And remember, the
FEST team is not an armed reaction force. That is not what a FEST team does.
WESTMORELAND: Ma'am, I know that.
CLINTON: And so we had an armed reinforcements coming from Tripoli.
WESTMORELAND: But that was the only tool that you had to get people over there yourself, not the
DOD. This was...
(CROSSTALK)
CLINTON: But what would be -- I'm sorry, Congressman, I mean, look...
(CROSSTALK) WESTMORELAND: Well, evidently, it has been -- it has served its
purpose from being put in into different places it has responded to.
But I want to talk to you just a little bit about your e-mails. And that is that I think you said it was
October that you received a letter that asked you and former secretary of states (sic) to present all their
e-mails. Is that correct?
CLINTON: That's my memory, yes.
WESTMORELAND: OK. Now, in August, the State Department met with your attorneys to talk about
the lack of the e-mails that they had. Did you know that?
CLINTON: I didn't at the time, no.
WESTMORELAND: You didn't know that they were meeting -- that the State Department was meeting
with your attorneys?
CLINTON: Not -- not at that time. And as you also recall, the State Department was beginning to turn
over to this committee my e- mails because they had between 90 and 95 percent of all my work- related
e-mails in the State Department system.
WESTMORELAND: But ma'am, they met with your attorney, and your attorney that they met with
Condoleezza Rice, and me to find -- to find all this information. I'm just telling you, it smells -- it
doesn't smell right, and so I yield back.
CLINTON: Well, if I could respond, I think in the course of trying to answer and archive information,
the State Department determined that they did have gaps in their recordkeeping, and it was much more
than about me.
They had gaps with respect to others, both other secretaries and others within the State Department, and
the technology in the State Department, indeed, throughout our entire Government, is notoriously
difficult and often unreliable. And I think it was the State Department's efforts to try to fill some of
those gaps.
So I didn't know at the time that there had been such a meeting. I learned of it subsequently. And when
I received a copy of the letter that was sent by the State Department to me and the other three preceding
Secretaries of State, I immediately said, well, let's help them fill the gaps, even though I believed that
the vast majority of my e-mails were already in their system. And we did.
We conducted the investigation. The survey that I have described to you, and turned over more than
30,000 work-related e-mails, 55,000 pages to the State Department. 90 to 95 percent were already
there.
We sent so many that some were going to be returned because they were clearly not work related. We
did our best. I did my best to make sure that if there were gaps in recordkeeping, at least my materials
would be there to help fill any gaps above and beyond the 90 to 95 percent of e-mails that were already
in the system.
WESTMORELAND: I'm not an attorney but I think Ms. Mills is a good attorney...
(UNKNOWN): Regular order, Mr. Chairman. At this late hour, four minutes after regular 10 (ph)
minute time should be cut out off with questioning.
(CROSSTALK)
GOWDY: The gentleman is out of time. Just like almost every other member has been out of time
throughout the day.
(UNKNOWN): Not four minutes out of time, Mr. Chairman. GOWDY: Oh, you'd be surprised.
(CROSSTALK)
(UNKNOWN): Well, it's a late hour and our witness has been here more than nine hours. I think in the
interest of brevity...
GOWDY: And as soon as the gentlelady finishes I'll recognize our next member.
(UNKNOWN): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that courtesy.
GOWDY: The gentleman from California is recognized.
SCHIFF: Well, madam secretary, I don't know how you're doing, but I'm exhausted. If we stay here
much longer, you're going to have to take that 3M phone call from the committee room.
In fact, your testimony has not only gone on longer than both your prior testimonies to the House and
Senate combined, but -- I don't know if pleased is the right word, but I'm able to inform you now that
your testimony has gone on longer than all the other hearings we have held combined.
But in the interest of full disclosure, we haven't done very much. So we've only had three hearings in
the last year and a half, but still, that's pretty impressive because some of those hearings we were
multiple witnesses, and you have now outlasted all of them.
But I do think you can tell when you're getting to the point of diminishing returns when you have a
panel who are inventing testimony for you or imagining conversations you're having meetings with
your lawyer as well.
As for your e-mails, I feel like channeling Bernie Sanders here tonight. (LAUGHTER)
SCHIFF: But I'm no Larry David and I know I wouldn't do it right. So instead I'll tell you about the
other person I agree with on your e-mails, and that's our chairman, who was asked on Fox News by
Chris Wallace, what your e-mail use has to do with investigating what happened in Benghazi, and
Chairman Gowdy's response was, "Well, probably not much of anything."
As we, you know, I hope wind up tonight, I want to just make one observation about your e-mails.
Because I think it's true of the investigation generally. For all the talk about your e-mails, what's
interesting to me is not a member here, either on the news or in leaked (ph) form or whatever, has said
anything about the content of your e-mails that add any insight to what we already know.
So it's fascinating to me that for all this talk, they have not pointed to a single thing in those e-mails of
substance that alters our understanding of what happened in Benghazi, that alters the conclusions of
those seven or eight other investigations.
And what's true of your e-mails is true of this broader investigation, which is, here we are, 17 months
later, $4.5 million later, and we have nothing new to tell the American people.
I have struggled to find something to ask you tonight that hasn't already been asked an infinite number
of times, an infinite number of ways, and I'm not going to go through the exercise of searching for a
question to be asked again. It's too late for that.
But having, I guess, started by pondering what the core theory was of my colleagues -- and I'd
appreciate at least one of them taking a stab at it -- I do feel it's my responsibility now as I wind up to
tell you my theory of what's happening is. Speaker Boehner did not want to form this committee. He
said so, not to me, but he said so on national TV. He said, what is to be gained by having yet another
committee after all the other committees we've had investigate? What is to be gained by this. This is a
bad idea.
At some point, something changed the speaker's mind. Now, I'm not in the room when the speaker
makes the decision to reverse course. In reading a profile of our chairman, he wasn't in the room, either.
He got a call from the speaker when he was back in his district saying, I've decided to form a select
committee. How would you like to be the chairman? I'll bet Mr. Chairman wishes he had never gotten
that call.
So who was in the room? Well, Kevin McCarthy was in the room. There is nobody better situated to
know why this committee was formed, or why the speaker changed his mind than the speaker's No. 2
Kevin McCarthy. So with all due respect to our chairman who says, shut up, other members, you don't
know what you're talking about, I'd have to say, actually one person who does know what he's talking
about was Kevin McCarthy. So that's why I think we're here. And it would be one thing if it was that
common an isolation. It'd be another if we didn't have one of their own team, a GOP investigator who
is going to vote for whoever the Republican nominee is, he tells us proudly, saying the same thing.
But it's the way we've conducted ourselves, that is the most compelling evidence that that's the only
object here. I mean, I think we've seen amply tonight in the questions, there's very little interest in what
actually happened. There's not much interest in how we can prevent it in the future, but there is a lot of
interest in trying to score points against you tonight.
Everybody, I think, on this side of the podium is hoping they're the one that does the gotcha that makes
the news. Well, it's terrible abuse of our responsibility and our power, and -- and I think we'll rue the
day that we did this. I have no questions, Madam Secretary, and I appreciate your patience and I yield
back.
I'm -- I'm happy to yield to my colleague, Mr. Cummings.
CUMMINGS: Madam secretary, I want to associate myself with the voice of my colleague, but I want
to go back to the ARB. In my 20 years on the Oversight Committee, one of the things that I've tried to
do, is try to make sure that I protect the reputations of the people who come before our Committee. Be
they Republican witnesses, be they Democrat or independent.
The reason being, that I realize there is life after the hearing. And so often, Madam Secretary, what
happens is people come before these hearings, the families watching, colleagues watching. They are
torn apart, and then in many instances we -- things are corrected later on instead of it appearing on the
front page of the newspaper, it's on page 33 at the bottom in a little paragraph.
And you were talking a little bit earlier about the night of the tragedy. And I've done a lot of depositions
in my life as a lawyer, but I can tell you -- and I think you should be very proud of this. When I listened
to Cheryl Mills (ph), to Mr. Sullivan (ph), and Ms. Abedine (ph) -- when they talked about this night
and what you did that night in their transcribed interviews, all of them were basically bored to tears.
And I -- I remember sitting there saying to myself, you know, if you can create a culture in an
organization where people, in talking about their boss, and how she reacted, and what she felt that
would bring them to tears, it -- it -- it says a lot. And I realize that you've gone through a lot, but the
fact still remains -- and it bothers me when I hear people even imply that you didn't care about your
people. That's not right.
And then I sit here and I watch you. And I saw how you kind of struggled when you were talking about
that night. And I just for one want to thank you, and I appreciate what you've done. It has not been easy.
You're right, it's easy to sit up here under these lights, and Monday morning quarter backing about what
could have been, what should have been.
You have laid it out. I think -- you've said -- this has not been done perfectly. You wish you could do it
another way, and then the statement you made a few minutes ago when you said, you know, I have
given more thought to this than all of you combined. So I don't know what we want from you. Do we
want to badger you over and over again until you get tired, until we do get the gotcha moment he's
talking about?
CUMMINGS: We're better than that. We are so much better. We are a better country. And we are better
than using taxpayer dollars to try to destroy a campaign. That's not what America is all about.
So you can comment if you like; I just had to get that off my chest.
(APPLAUSE)
CUMMINGS: Madam secretary?
CLINTON: Thank you, Congressman. I came here because I said I would. And I've done everything I
know to do, as have the people with whom I worked to try to answer your questions. I cannot do any
more than that.
The answers have changed not at all since I appeared two years ago before the House and the Senate.
And I recognize that there are many currents at work in this committee, but I can only hope that the
statesmanship overcomes the partisanship. At some point we have to do this. It is deeply unfortunate
that something as serious as what happened in Benghazi could ever be used for partisan political
purposes. And I'm hoping that we can move forward together, we can start working together, we can
start listening to each other, and I appreciate greatly what you said, Ranking Member Cummings.
CUMMINGS: Thank you very much.
GOWDY: Madam secretary, before we go to Mr. Pompeo, Mr. Schiff from California made reference
to a phone call that I received from Speaker Boehner, which he's correct, I did. And Speaker Boehner
never mentioned your name in the phone call. And then my friend from California suggested that
maybe I wished I had not received that phone call, and I'd like to assure him that he could not be
further from the truth.
Learning about the four people, two of whom you worked with and all four of whom we count as
fellow Americans, is worth whatever amount of political badgering that may come my way. I have seen
the personification of courage and public service. And so I -- Adam, to answer to your question, no, I
don't regret it. I'm a better person having learned more about the four people we lost in Benghazi, and
that's why we signed up for it.
And with that I'll go to Mr. Pompeo. POMPEO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Schiff, also suggested
that you had to be in the room with the speaker. You're right He was originally against the formation of
this committee, but you don't have to guess why he formed it. He made it clear when he announced this
committee. It was because the State Department turned over information in a FOIA request that had not
been turned over to the previous committees. He was concerned about that. And he realized the State
Department and other government agencies may not have provided those other committees the
information they need to do complete their task.
So you don't need to speculate. One more administrative item. Mr. Westmoreland said there was a
meeting between your counsel, Miss Mills, and the State Department regarding your e-mails. He said
the meeting was in August. It was actually in July. It was a little bit earlier, and I just wanted to make
sure the record reflected that.
Secretary Clinton, I have a few questions to ask you. We saved them for the end of the day because it
may be that you can't provide answers to me to these questions in an open setting. So it's been a long
day. I wanted to give you that heads up. These are questions that I would like to get answered, but it
may be that an open hearing is not a place in which you'll be permitted to provide those answers
because of the nature of the answers you'll provide. These are yes and no questions.
Were you aware, or are you aware of any efforts by the U.S. government in Libya to provide any
weapons, either directly or indirectly, or through a cutout to my militias or opposition to Gadhafi's
forces?
CLINTON: That was a very long question, and I think the answer is no.
POMPEO: Were you aware or are you aware of any U.S. efforts by the U.S. government in Libya to
provide any weapons, directly or indirectly, or through a cutout, to any Syrian rebels or militias or
opposition to Syrian forces?
CLINTON: No.
POMPEO: Were you aware or are you aware of any efforts by the U.S. government in Libya to
facilitate or support the provision of weapons to any opposition of Gadhafi's forces, Libyan rebels or
militias through a third party or country?
CLINTON: No.
POMPEO: Did you ever consider the idea of using private security experts to arm the opposition?
CLINTON: Private security?
POMPEO: Yes, ma'am. Did -- I'll ask the question again. Did you ever at any time consider the idea of
using private security experts to arm the opposition in Libya? CLINTON: Not seriously, no.
POMPEO: What does "not seriously" mean, ma'am?
CLINTON: Well, I think you're referring to a reference in one of Sid Blumenthal's e-mails.
POMPEO: No, ma'am, I'm referring to a reference in your e-mail.
CLINTON: Well, the answer is no. POMPEO: Ma'am, I'll read you the e-mail. It says, "FYI" -- this
is to Mr. Sullivan seated behind you, it says, "FYI, the idea of using private security experts to arm the
opposition should be considered."
Were you just not serious?
CLINTON: It was not considered seriously.
POMPEO: But you thought about it. You thought it might be both appropriate and lawful when you
send that note to Mr. Sullivan.
CLINTON: I'm open to ideas, but that doesn't mean that they're either considered seriously or acted
upon.
POMPEO: Was there any further e-mails or discussion with respect to that issue of potentially arming
private experts or having private experts arm the Libyans?
CLINTON: Not that I'm aware of.
POMPEO: Another series of yes or no questions, Madam Secretary. Did you ask the Department of
Defense how you were going to get your people out the evening that the incident occurred?
CLINTON: That was one of the matters that was discussed with the Department of Defense, yes.
POMPEO: Did you ask about what assets were positioned in place that they might be able to help?
CLINTON: Of course. That was part of the conversation from the very beginning.
POMPEO: Did you ask about how long it might take them to arrive either in Tripoli or Benghazi?
CLINTON: Yes, we did.
POMPEO: You earlier said today, a couple of hours back, that there were no military resources that
could have arrived in Benghazi in a reasonable time. That's your testimony from today. What was a
"reasonable" time?
CLINTON: According to what we were told by the Defense Department, within a number of hours,
there was not any way to get assets deployed in time to get to Benghazi. Of course, it was too late for
our compound. And the idea of evacuating from the CIA annex was seriously addressed before the
attack, but then obviously implemented after.
POMPEO: Yes, ma'am. But when the initial attack occurred, you had no idea how long the incidence
would continue, did you?
CLINTON: It was over within an hour.
POMPEO: Yes, ma'am. There was a subsequent attack and could have been a third and a fourth. So
when the initial attack occurred, did you have any idea what the magnitude and the duration of the
events of that night would be?
CLINTON: Congressman, I don't understand your question. We knew that the attack was over. We
knew that our diplomatic security team had to evacuate from the compound to the CIA annex, and we
were in a frantic search to find Ambassador Stevens.
POMPEO: Yes, ma'am. But several hours elapsed and there was a subsequent attack, and you didn't
know that that subsequent attack would take place, I'll concede that. My question is: Why was heaven
and earth not moved at the initial sound of the guns, maybe even putting tankers in the air from
McConnell Air Force Base in Kansas? You simply didn't know how long this series of events was
going to continue, nor did you know how long the risk to the people that worked for you was going to
remain.
CLINTON: Congressman, you will have to ask the Defense Department these questions. We certainly
asked that all effort be made to deploy any assets that could be of use in Benghazi. I know that they put
a number of assets in the United States, in Europe, on alert. But we were advised that it would take a
number of hours to get there. And with respect to the CIA annex, you should talk with the intelligence
community about that.
POMPEO: Yes, ma'am, we will do that. And in some cases, we have asked those questions.
One -- you talked earlier about Mr. Katala (ph), who is sitting in a prison cell not too far from where
you and I are sitting here this evening. I, too, share your view that I'm glad that we've pulled one of the
terrorists who murdered -- was involved in the murder of U.S. government people on that night.
When that attack took place, Mr. Katala (ph), according to the indictment from the Justice Department,
Mr. Katala (ph) and his folks removed documents from the temporary mission facility. Were you aware
of that?
CLINTON: Yes, we later became aware that documents had been removed, but there was no classified
documents at Benghazi.
POMPEO: And how do you know that?
CLINTON: We know it through our own investigation about what documents were at Benghazi, and
there were no classified materials, to the best of our information.
POMPEO: Yes, ma'am. Do you know if there was sensitive information?
CLINTON: I suppose it depends on what one thinks of as sensitive information. There was information
there and some of it was burnt, either wholly or partially. Some of it was looted. And some of it was
recovered eventually. POMPEO: Madam Secretary, do you know where that material that
was looted went? Do you know into whose hands it fell? And do you know the nature and contents of
that material? You seem very confident it wasn't classified. I don't share your confidence. But
nonetheless, do you know where that material went?
CLINTON: I think that it -- it is very difficult to know where it ended up. But I want to just reiterate the
point that I made. This was not a facility that had the capacity to handle classified material. And there
was, to the best of our information, Congressman, no classified material at the Benghazi facility.
POMPEO: Ma'am, the fact that it wasn't capable of handling classified material doesn't mean that there
wasn't any classified material there. Is that correct?
CLINTON: Well, the procedure is not to have classified material at such a facility. And again, to the
best of our knowledge, there was not any there.
POMPEO: Yes, ma'am. You're not supposed to have classified e- mail on your private server either.
testimony already, I think that it's appropriate to ask for regular order and that questioning be closed for
this particular member of the panel.
GOWDY: The gentleman is recognized for 60 seconds.
POMPEO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to come back to one issue we talked about a couple hours back about accountability. You said
that you didn't have the authority -- lawful authority to terminate any employees. Is that correct?
CLINTON: That is correct. And it is because of the laws and the regulations of our government,
Congressman.
POMPEO: Did you have the authority to provide a counseling statement to any employee?
CLINTON: I do not know what you're referring to. POMPEO: In other words, you couldn't fire them,
but you could put a letter in their employment file saying, "Hey, you didn't do your job well." Did you
undertake that?
CLINTON: I think it was pretty well known that the ARB did not think they did their job. And the ARB
specifically said, and some of this has been declassified, as you know, about personnel matters, that
they could not find breach of duty, but they were as firm in saying that there were failures in the
performance of the people that they named.
(UNKNOWN): Chairman regular order. POMPEO: Just two yes or no questions.
(UNKNOWN): Sixty seconds has already elapsed. I believe the chairman granted 60 additional
seconds.
POMPEO: I'll wait for the next round. I yield back.
CUMMINGS: Mr. Chairman, before my time starts, he just said something that I want to make clear.
He just said he's going to wait for his next round. I thought we were kind of closing down here.
(UNKNOWN): Parliamentary inquiry. How late are we going tonight?
GOWDY: The gentleman is recognized to ask two yes or no questions.
POMPEO: Madam secretary, did you ask someone or did you prepare a counseling statement or letter
of reprimand for any employees at the State Department connected with the incident of September 11,
2012?
CLINTON: There was a process that is the appropriate process for dealing with issues concerning
performance, and that was followed. It continued into my successor's term and the secretary of state,
Secretary Kerry, made whatever the final determinations were.
POMPEO: Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
GOWDY: The chair will now recognize the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Cummings.
He has, as you rightly say, served our nation for more than four decades. He holds the rank of career
ambassador. That's the highest position in the foreign service.
He served as under secretary of state for political affairs, he served as our U.S. ambassador to Russia,
India, Israel, El Salvador, Nigeria and Jordan. And he also served as the U.S. ambassador and
representative to the United Nations, where he led the U.S. effort under the first Bush administration to
build a coalition in the U.N. Security council during and after the first Gulf War.
He's a man who had served in high posts and dangerous posts. He understood what was to be expected,
and I counted on him in giving me the most comprehensive report possible.
I also wanted to find somebody with military experience, because these questions that have been raised
about, you know, could we have gotten assets there, what actually happened with the diplomatic
security agents, and Admiral Mike Mullen, who had just recently retired as the chairman of the joint
chiefs was, again, I thought, the perfect choice to work with Ambassador Pickering.
As you know, he was nominated by President George W. Bush to be chairman of the joint chiefs. He
served as chief of naval operations. He led NATO's joint force command, U.S. naval forces in Europe.
Commanded a missile cruiser, a missile destroyer, a tanker. He served in Vietnam and the Persian Gulf.
Excuse me.
CUMMINGS: You need some water, Madam? Secretary?
GOWDY: Would you like to take -- would you like us to take a 60- second -- two-minute break?
CLINTON: No. Just let me grab -- a lozenge.
So, Congressman, I have the utmost confidence in both of them.
CUMMINGS: Thank you.
Let me say this. You know, this hearing began with the chairman reading a list of questions that he
claimed were unanswered. In fact, those questions had been asked and answered many times.
As a matter of fact, when we go back to the last questioner, you know, it was Speaker Boehner who -as a matter of fact, last Tuesday, Madam Secretary, Speaker Boehner acknowledged to Fox News the
allegation that the U.S. government was involved in an illegal weapons program in Libya has been -and this is according to him -- investigated by the House Intelligence Committee and debunked.
That's what Speaker Boehner said about this illicit weapons transfer situation. Do you want us to hold
up, Madam? Okay.
So going back, today -- so these questions again were many -- asked and answered. The new
documents we obtained and the interviews we conducted don't contradict the conclusions from the
previous investigations, they simply confirm them.
Even after this marathon grilling, the select committee has found no evidence of any nefarious activity
on the part of the secretary. She did not order the military to stand down. And there is still no indication
Would you want to talk to the author of that e-mail if you were investigating Benghazi?
CLINTON: The Accountability Review Board had full run of the State Department to talk to anyone
they chose to talk to. It's my understanding they conducted more than 100 interviews, and they were
well aware, as their report reflects, of the dangerous situation in Libya.
GOWDY: I don't want to interrupt you. That actually was not my question.
My question is, would you want to talk to that person? Not whether or not the ARB did, because the
ARB actually did talk to that person.
My question is, wouldn't you want to talk to that person if you were investigating Benghazi?
I promise it is not a trick question. The answer is yes. You would want to talk to the person who
authored that e-mail.
CLINTON: As you just said, Mr. Chairman, the ARB did.
GOWDY: Yes. And the co-Chair of the ARB called your Chief of Staff and told the author of that email not to go to Congress. That's my point.
My point is the ARB did some good things, that's why are first two hearing were on making sure the
recommendations by the ARB were actually implemented.
But when the author of that e-mail is gonna be brought before Congress and one of the co-chairs calls
your chief of staff and says, "I don't think that that witness is going to be a good witness," Madam
Secretary, with all due respect, she's a fact witness. Whether she's good or bad, the author of that e-mail
has a right for Congress to -- to -- to question them.
I mean, that's not even a close question. So somebody can be a good person -- and I have no doubt that
Mr. Mullen and Mr. Pickering both are. But this is also what I don't doubt: I don't doubt that that phone
call was made to Miss Mills saying, "don't send Charlene Lamb before Congress, she's not going to
make a good witness," and I don't doubt that there's not a transcript from any of the ARB interviews.
And you may say, "well, why does that matter?" If you're going to write a report, and you want to write
a report with specificity and particularity, you have to cite the transcript. And I can't tell you a single
question that was asked of a single ARB witness, because there is no transcript.
So -- so my point is not that the ARB did a bad job or a good job. My point is from the -- from the
standpoint of a serious investigation, it was an inadequate job. And -- and -- and I want to hopefully
prove that to you.
There used to be a stack up there, when Mr. Smith was with us, about all the previous investigations
that Congress and the ARB had done. Did any of those previous congressional investigations or the
ARB have access to your e-mails?
CLINTON: Mr. Chairman, first of all, the witness you are referring to did appear before Congress...