quote:

October 18, 2015
The Honorable Elijah E. Cummings
Ranking Member
The Select Committee on the Events Surrounding
the 2012 Terrorist Attacks in Benghazi
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Mr. Cummings:

Thank you for your early Sunday morning letter. I appreciate the opportunity to respond.

As you know our Committee is not investigating Secretary Clinton or allegations surrounding the handling of classified or otherwise protected information. Other entities may be investigating matters related thereto, but we are not. 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. 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. 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. This hardly evidences your baseless allegations of a "pivot" toward the Secretary or her email. What broke that string of 21 interviews in a row unrelated to any aspect of her email was the June 16, 2015 deposition of Sidney Blumenthal, which is discussed below.

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. The Committee is reviewing Mr. Blumenthal’s email with respect to these and other matters outlined in my October 7 letter in that regard. 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). 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. 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.

Contrary to your assertion, the CIA did not inform the Committee that anything about the facts stated in the October 7 letter “[was] 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. 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. 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. And in fact, additional information remains in the document that ordinarily would be considered highly sensitive. This appears to mean either Mr. Blumenthal conveyed false and unreliable information to Secretary Clinton about Libya and misrepresented it, or the review process is faulty or has been politicized. 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. These are important issues. I’m glad to know you also consider them important and worthy of detailed additional review by the Committee.

Our Committee has access to career civil servants, former federal prosecutors, former intelligence experts as well as military experts who are uniquely well suited to gauge intelligence information and how it should be handled. Although the Executive Branch is ultimately responsible for classification, we remain concerned with the naming of sources and methods and will continue to protect that information now and going forward where it is readily apparent to us.

As such, we will continue to redact certain information to protect sensitive information regardless of how others treat that information. Whether Secretary Clinton received protected information from Sidney Blumenthal or simply recklessly wrong information from Sidney Blumenthal is relevant at some level. What is most important is to protect information that can endanger others. As you will recall we had this same conversation when we received a letter from you we found troubling as it relates to the naming of certain assets. We did the responsible thing which was come to you, alert you to the issue, and allow for that information to be withdrawn and or otherwise not made public.

So, our position is consistent. Sources and methods of intelligence are among the most closely guarded information our government has. We will continue to redact that information and treat it with the highest level of confidentiality and sensitivity, and we would advise you to do the same.

Sincerely,
Trey Gowdy
Chairman

PS: I am envious of your staff's ability to get information from this administration in less than 45 minutes on a weekend. This is something the majority Members struggle to do on weekdays. Perhaps you would be willing to help us gain access to the information the Committee has been seeking from the administration for over half a year now.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

Gowdy Response to Latest Cummings Letter
October 18, 2015
Press Release
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. He also released the redacted email in question so the American people could decide for themselves regarding concerns about sources and methods. The committee will continue to protect sensitive information related to this email.
See below for text of letter:

quote:

October 18, 2015
The Honorable Elijah E. Cummings
Ranking Member
The Select Committee on the Events Surrounding
the 2012 Terrorist Attacks in Benghazi
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Mr. Cummings:

Thank you for your early Sunday morning letter. I appreciate the opportunity to respond.

As you know our Committee is not investigating Secretary Clinton or allegations surrounding the handling of classified or otherwise protected information. Other entities may be investigating matters related thereto, but we are not. 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. 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. 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. This hardly evidences your baseless allegations of a "pivot" toward the Secretary or her email. What broke that string of 21 interviews in a row unrelated to any aspect of her email was the June 16, 2015 deposition of Sidney Blumenthal, which is discussed below.

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. The Committee is reviewing Mr. Blumenthal’s email with respect to these and other matters outlined in my October 7 letter in that regard. 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). 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. 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.

Contrary to your assertion, the CIA did not inform the Committee that anything about the facts stated in the October 7 letter “[was] 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. 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. 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. And in fact, additional information remains in the document that ordinarily would be considered highly sensitive. This appears to mean either Mr. Blumenthal conveyed false and unreliable information to Secretary Clinton about Libya and misrepresented it, or the review process is faulty or has been politicized. 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. These are important issues. I’m glad to know you also consider them important and worthy of detailed additional review by the Committee.

Our Committee has access to career civil servants, former federal prosecutors, former intelligence experts as well as military experts who are uniquely well suited to gauge intelligence information and how it should be handled. Although the Executive Branch is ultimately responsible for classification, we remain concerned with the naming of sources and methods and will continue to protect that information now and going forward where it is readily apparent to us.

As such, we will continue to redact certain information to protect sensitive information regardless of how others treat that information. Whether Secretary Clinton received protected information from Sidney Blumenthal or simply recklessly wrong information from Sidney Blumenthal is relevant at some level. What is most important is to protect information that can endanger others. As you will recall we had this same conversation when we received a letter from you we found troubling as it relates to the naming of certain assets. We did the responsible thing which was come to you, alert you to the issue, and allow for that information to be withdrawn and or otherwise not made public.

So, our position is consistent. Sources and methods of intelligence are among the most closely guarded information our government has. We will continue to redact that information and treat it with the highest level of confidentiality and sensitivity, and we would advise you to do the same.

Sincerely,
Trey Gowdy
Chairman

PS: I am envious of your staff's ability to get information from this administration in less than 45 minutes on a weekend. This is something the majority Members struggle to do on weekdays. Perhaps you would be willing to help us gain access to the information the Committee has been seeking from the administration for over half a year now.

http://benghazi.house.gov/news/press-releases/gowdy-response-to-latest-cummings-letter

given the choice between trusting Elijah Cummings, or trey gowdy, im going with the latter.

quote:

October 7, 2015
The Honorable Elijah E. Cummings
Ranking Member
Select Committee on the Events Surrounding
the 2012 Terrorist Attack in Benghazi
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Ranking Member Cummings:

I was disheartened at the nature and tone of Monday’s letter from your Democrat
colleagues and you...

You have known from the outset that it was my intent to conduct the business of this Committee in a fair and bipartisan manner and follow the facts wherever they may lead. And because your staff has participated fully in each transcribed interview and deposition, you know we have done exactly that. Not once in any of these
conversations have you ever questioned the motivations of the Committee’s work or questioned our mission to uncover the facts surrounding the Benghazi terrorist attacks. Your public posture, however, has been quite the opposite. For months you have done nothing but write letters dripping with vitriol and baseless allegations, driven, one would
reluctantly conclude, by the desire to create a false partisan narrative. Your Democrat colleagues and you have contributed nothing substantively to the Committee’s investigation over the past seventeen months—you have not requested a single new witness interview nor have you made one single document request to any Executive Branch agency. In fact, your Committee Members
have appeared infrequently at witness interviews; sometimes staying only long enough to apologize to the witness, ask questions about Secretary Clinton, and then address the media...

I would simply ask that if you are not going to participate at least do not distort the motives and actions of those who do...

Further, it is you, not the Republicans, who has selectively leaked information to promote your own false narrative—that this Committee is political—or protect Democrat political figures,
when it is a fact Democrats and you are the ones who have treated the Committee as political from the outset...

Your duty as Ranking Member of this Committee has not been to the American public, but to your Democrat colleagues and to the Administration, including former Secretary Clinton. This is evidenced by
your complete lack of interest in gathering any facts whatsoever, and instead spending the majority of your time issuing press releases describing Democrat strawmen which no one is
investigating except Democrats and you. These are the same old partisan Washington games with which the American people are fed up...

You may, and no doubt will, attempt to continue characterizing our motives however you feel may be politically expedient for the Democrats. The fact is that while we have done what
we set out to do, much work still remains. The October 22 hearing is but one event in a series of tasks that we must accomplish to conclude the fact finding portion of this investigation. There is
still time for you to join us in this endeavor. I hope you are finally able to rise above the political pressures you face and remember why we are here: the promises we made more than a year ago
to the families of our fallen heroes. At the very least, they deserve our best efforts to answer the questions with which they left us, and not t artisan bickering that you have displayed to date...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
I think its high time there was an investigation into the benghazi committee...this one specifically.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

quote:


Sources and methods of intelligence are among the most closely guarded information our government has.

Sincerely,
Trey Gowdy
Chairman

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44
more of Elijah Cummings being combatively problematic (and useless in terms of the purpose of the committee):

quote:

October 7, 2015
The Honorable Elijah E. Cummings
Ranking Member
Select Committee on the Events Surrounding
the 2012 Terrorist Attack in Benghazi
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Ranking Member Cummings:
I was disheartened at the nature and tone of Monday’s letter from your Democrat
colleagues and you...
You have known from the outset that it was my intent to conduct the business of this Committee in a fair and bipartisan manner and follow the facts wherever they may lead. And because your staff has participated fully in each transcribed interview and deposition, you know we have done exactly that. Not once in any of these
conversations have you ever questioned the motivations of the Committee’s work or questioned our mission to uncover the facts surrounding the Benghazi terrorist attacks. Your public posture, however, has been quite the opposite. For months you have done nothing but write letters dripping with vitriol and baseless allegations, driven, one would
reluctantly conclude, by the desire to create a false partisan narrative. Your Democrat colleagues and you have contributed nothing substantively to the Committee’s investigation over the past seventeen months—you have not requested a single new witness interview nor have you made one single document request to any Executive Branch agency. In fact, your Committee Members
have appeared infrequently at witness interviews; sometimes staying only long enough to apologize to the witness, ask questions about Secretary Clinton, and then address the media...
I would simply ask that if you are not going to participate at least do not distort the motives and actions of those who do...
Further, it is you, not the Republicans, who has selectively leaked information to promote your own false narrative—that this Committee is political—or protect Democrat political figures,
when it is a fact Democrats and you are the ones who have treated the Committee as political from the outset...
Your duty as Ranking Member of this Committee has not been to the American public, but to your Democrat colleagues and to the Administration, including former Secretary Clinton. This is evidenced by
your complete lack of interest in gathering any facts whatsoever, and instead spending the majority of your time issuing press releases describing Democrat strawmen which no one is
investigating except Democrats and you. These are the same old partisan Washington games with which the American people are fed up...
You may, and no doubt will, attempt to continue characterizing our motives however you feel may be politically expedient for the Democrats. The fact is that while we have done what
we set out to do, much work still remains. The October 22 hearing is but one event in a series of tasks that we must accomplish to conclude the fact finding portion of this investigation. There is
still time for you to join us in this endeavor. I hope you are finally able to rise above the political pressures you face and remember why we are here: the promises we made more than a year ago
to the families of our fallen heroes. At the very least, they deserve our best efforts to answer the questions with which they left us, and not t artisan bickering that you have displayed to date...

you get the idea...plenty more at:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3346280/posts

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

the short version is, gowdy presents facts and information that are verifiable, and references to witness from whom his position is historically accurate.

Cummings presents an opinion, and on top of that, one that reeks of partisan political posturing. what's more, his timing is too convenient and coincident with Hillary's coronation. where was he since 2014?

to that point, gowdy seems to correctly and effectively respond to cummings' spin.

lastly, personally speaking, there is the character of the men presenting the arguments---when I listen to gowdy, I trust him. when I listen to Cummings, I don't.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

Cummings presents an opinion, and on top of that, one that reeks of partisan political posturing. what's more, his timing is too convenient and coincident with Hillary's coronation. where was he since 2014?

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

the short version is, gowdy presents facts and information that are verifiable, and references to witness from whom his position is historically accurate.

Cummings presents an opinion, and on top of that, one that reeks of partisan political posturing. what's more, his timing is too convenient and coincident with Hillary's coronation. where was he since 2014?

to that point, gowdy seems to correctly and effectively respond to cummings' spin.

lastly, personally speaking, there is the character of the men presenting the arguments---when I listen to gowdy, I trust him. when I listen to Cummings, I don't.