I’m glad to know you also consider them important and worthy of detailed additional review by the Committee. I also note the fact you did not quote the material in question in your letter, suggesting you yourself have reason to believe that it should not be publicly disclosed for some proper reason. Blumenthal conveyed false and unreliable information to Secretary Clinton about Libya and misrepresented it, or the review process is faulty or has been politicized. And in fact, additional information remains in the document that ordinarily would be considered highly sensitive. In fact, the name of the alleged source was redacted from the material cleared for public release by someone in the Executive Branch – the fact that the CIA says it didn’t do it does not mean the material was not sensitive or classified. In fact, my understanding is the CIA advised the Committee in a very brief email late Saturday night that it had reviewed the material in question and asked for no material to be redacted. Accessing this information is indispensable if we are to do what the House of Representatives asked us to do which is write the final, definitive accounting of what happened before, during, and after the attacks in Benghazi.Ĭontrary to your assertion, the CIA did not inform the Committee that anything about the facts stated in the October 7 letter “ wrong.” As usual, I would ask you to completely and accurately relate the facts rather than attempt to create an impression that is misleading based on an incomplete and selective recitation of the facts. As such our Committee is the first Committee to gain access to Secretary Clinton's emails, Sidney Blumenthal's emails and now Ambassador Stevens' emails. As such the nature of the information provided to the Secretary in this regard is highly relevant to better understand decisions made before and after the attacks (there is no evidence Sidney Blumenthal provided any counsel during the pendency of the attacks). Blumenthal’s email with respect to these and other matters outlined in my October 7 letter in that regard. What is relevant to our Committee's jurisdiction is the Secretary's reliance on Sidney Blumenthal for advice and counsel on matters, inter alia, related to Libya/Benghazi. What broke that string of 21 interviews in a row unrelated to any aspect of her email was the Jdeposition of Sidney Blumenthal, which is discussed below. This hardly evidences your baseless allegations of a "pivot" toward the Secretary or her email. In fact, after the media - not our Committee, but the media - broke the news of her exclusive use of private email and her use of a personal server in early March of 2015, the next 21 witness interviews in a row had nothing to do with Clinton or her email. Moreover, as you know out of the 54 interviews conducted by the Committee precisely one (1) has been related to her server and that interview - as you recall - was very short because the witness invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. This is best evidenced by the fact our Committee has not issued a single subpoena related to her email arrangement or server or any aspect surrounding allegations of mishandling classified or otherwise protected information. Other entities may be investigating matters related thereto, but we are not. I appreciate the opportunity to respond.Īs you know our Committee is not investigating Secretary Clinton or allegations surrounding the handling of classified or otherwise protected information. Thank you for your early Sunday morning letter. The Select Committee on the Events Surrounding The committee will continue to protect sensitive information related to this email. He also released the redacted email in question so the American people could decide for themselves regarding concerns about sources and methods. Washington, DC-Select Committee on Benghazi Chairman Trey Gowdy today released the following letter in response to yet another Democrat missive that seeks to distort the majority’s investigative effort.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |