U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

98–884 2016

HEARING 4 

HEARING 4 

BEFORE THE

SELECT COMMITTEE ON 

THE EVENTS SURROUNDING 

THE 2012 TERRORIST 

ATTACK IN BENGHAZI 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, OCTOBER 22, 2015 

Printed for the use of the Select Committee on the Events Surrounding the 

2012 Terrorist Attack in Benghazi 

( 

Available on the Internet: 

www.fdsys.gov 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(II) 

HOUSE SELECT COMMITTEE ON BENGHAZI 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina, Chairman 

LYNN WESTMORELAND, Georgia 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

PETER ROSKAM, Illinois 

MIKE POMPEO, Kansas 

MARTHA A. ROBY, Alabama 

SUSAN BROOKS, Indiana 

ELIJAH CUMMINGS, Maryland 

Ranking Minority Member 

ADAM SMITH, Washington 

ADAM SCHIFF, California 

LINDA SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois 

PROFESSIONAL STAFF

PHIL KIKO, Staff Director 

SUSANNE SACHSMAN GROOMS, Minority Staff Director 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(1) 

HEARING 4 

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 22, 2015 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SELECT COMMITTEE ON BENGHAZI, 

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:01 a.m., in Room 

1100, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Trey Gowdy [chairman of the committee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Gowdy, Brooks, Jordan, Pompeo, Roby, 

Roskam, Westmoreland, Cummings, Smith, Schiff, Sanchez, and 

Duckworth. 

Staff Present: Philip G. Kiko, Staff Director and General Counsel; Chris Donesa, Deputy Staff Director; Dana Chipman, Chief Investigative Counsel; Sharon Jackson, Deputy Chief Counsel; Craig 

Missakian, Deputy Chief Counsel; Mark Grider, Deputy General 

Counsel; Mac Tolar, Senior Counsel; Carlton Davis, Investigator; 

Sara Barrineau, Investigator; Sheria Clarke, Counsel; Paige Oneto, 

Clerk; Kim Betz, Member Outreach Liaison; Paul Bell, Minority 

Press Secretary; Krista Boyd, Minority Senior Counsel; Linda 

Cohen, Minority Senior Professional Staff; Ronak Desai, Minority 

Counsel; Shannon Green, Minority Counsel; Susanne Sachsman 

Grooms, Minority Staff Director and General Counsel; Jennifer 

Werner, Minority Communications Director; Peter Kenny, Minority 

Senior Counsel; Erin O’Brien, Minority Detailee; Laura Rauch, Minority Senior Professional Staff; Dave Rapallo, Minority Senior Advisor to the Ranking Member; Daniel Rebnord, Minority Professional Staff; Mone Ross, Minority Staff Assistant; Heather Sawyer, 

Minority Chief Counsel; and Brent Woolfork, Minority Senior Professional Staff. 

Chairman GOWDY. Good morning. The committee will come to 

order, and the chair notes the presence of a quorum. 

Good morning. Welcome, Madam Secretary. 

Welcome to each of you. 

This is a public hearing of the Benghazi Select Committee. 

Just a couple of quick administrative matters before we start, 

Madam Secretary. 

There are predetermined breaks, but I want to make it absolutely clear, we can take a break for any reason or for no reason. 

If you or anyone would just simply alert me, then we will take a 

break, and it can be for any reason or for no reason. 

To our guests, we are happy to have you here. The witness deserves to hear the questions, and the members deserve to hear the 

answers. So proper decorum must be observed at all times. No reaction to questions or answers, no disruptions. Some committees 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
2 

take an incremental approach to decorum. I do not. This is your 

one and only notice. 

Madam Secretary, the ranking member and I will give opening 

statements, and then you will be recognized for your opening statement. And then, after that, the members will alternate from one 

side to the other. And because you have already been sworn, we 

will go straight to your opening. 

So I will now recognize myself and then recognize Mr. Cummings 

and then you, Madam Secretary. 

Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Doherty, and Tyrone Woods 

served this country with courage and with honor, and they were 

killed under circumstances most of us could never imagine. Terrorists pour through the front gate of an American facility, attacking 

people and property with machine guns, mortars, and fire. It is important that we remember how these four men died. It is equally 

important that we remember how these four men lived and why. 

They were more than four images on a television screen. They 

were husbands and fathers and sons and brothers and family and 

friends. They were Americans who believed in service and sacrifice. 

Many people speak wistfully of a better world but do little about 

it. These four went out and actually tried to make it better. And 

it cost them their lives. 

So we know what they gave us. What do we owe them? Justice 

for those that killed them. We owe their families our everlasting 

gratitude, respect. We owe them and each other the truth—the 

truth about why we were in Libya; the truth about what we were 

doing in Libya; the truth about the escalating violence in Libya before we were attacked and these four men were killed; the truth 

about requests for additional security; the truth about requests for 

additional personnel; the truth about requests for additional equipment; the truth about where and why our military was positioned 

as it was on the anniversary of 9/11; the truth about what was 

happening and being discussed in Washington while our people 

were under attack; the truth about what led to the attacks; and the 

truth about what our government told the American people after 

the attacks. 

Why were there so many requests for more security personnel 

and equipment, and why were those requests denied in Washington? Why did the State Department compound and facility not 

even come close to meeting proper security specifications? What 

policies were we pursuing in Libya that required a physical presence in spite of the escalating violence? Who in Washington was 

aware of the escalating violence? What precautions, if any, were 

taken on the anniversary of 9/11? 

What happened in Washington after the first attack, and what 

was our response to that attack? What did the military do or not 

do? What did our leaders in Washington do or not do, and when? 

Why was the American public given such divergent accounts of 

what caused these attacks? And why is it so hard to get information from the very government these four men represented, served, 

and sacrificed for? 

Even after an Accountability Review Board and a half-dozen congressional investigations, these and other questions still lingered. 

And these questions lingered because previous investigations were 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
3 

not thorough. These questions lingered because those previous investigations were narrow in scope and either incapable or unwilling 

to access the facts and evidence necessary to answer all relevant 

questions. 

So the House of Representatives—including some Democrats, I 

hasten to add—asked this committee to write the final, definitive 

accounting of what happened in Benghazi. 

This committee is the first committee to review more than 50,000 

pages of documents because we insisted that they be produced. 

This committee is the first committee to demand access to more 

eyewitnesses because serious investigations talk to as many eyewitnesses as possible. This committee is the first committee to 

thoroughly and individually interview scores of other witnesses, 

many of them for the first time. 

This committee is the first committee to review thousands of 

pages of documents from top State Department personnel. This 

committee is the first committee to demand access to relevant documents from the CIA, the FBI, the Department of Defense, even 

the White House. 

This committee is the first committee to demand access to the 

emails to and from Ambassador Chris Stevens. How could an investigation possibly be considered serious without reviewing the 

emails of the person most knowledgeable about Libya? 

This committee is the first committee, the only committee, to uncover the fact that Secretary Clinton exclusively used personal 

email on her own personal server for official business and kept the 

public record, including emails about Benghazi and Libya, in her 

own custody and control for almost two years after she left office. 

You will hear a lot today about the Accountability Review Board. 

Secretary Clinton has mentioned it more than 70 times in her previous testimony before Congress. But when you hear about the 

ARB, you should also know the State Department leadership handpicked the members of the ARB. The ARB never interviewed Secretary Clinton. The ARB never reviewed her emails. And Secretary 

Clinton’s top advisor was allowed to review and suggest changes to 

the ARB before the public ever saw it. 

There is no transcript of ARB interviews, so it’s impossible to 

know whether all relevant questions were asked and answered. 

And because there’s no transcript, it is also impossible to cite the 

ARB interviews with any particularity at all. That is not independent. That is not accountability. That is not a serious investigation. 

You will hear there were previous congressional investigations 

into Benghazi, and that is true. And it should make you wonder 

why those investigations failed to interview so many witnesses and 

access so many documents. If those previous congressional investigations were really serious and thorough, how did they miss Ambassador Stevens’ emails? If those previous investigations were serious and thorough, how did they miss Secretary Clinton’s emails? 

If those congressional investigations really were serious and thorough, why did they fail to interview dozens of key State Department witnesses, including agents on the ground who experienced 

the attacks firsthand? 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
4 

Just last month, three years after Benghazi, top aides finally returned documents to the State Department. A month ago, this committee received 1,500 new pages of Secretary Clinton’s emails related to Libya and Benghazi, three years after the attacks. And a 

little over two weeks ago, this committee received nearly 1,400 

pages of Ambassador Stevens’ emails, three years after the attacks. 

It is impossible to conduct a serious, fact-centric investigation 

without access to the documents from the former Secretary of 

State, the Ambassador who knew more about Libya than anyone 

else, and testimony from witnesses who survived the attacks. 

Madam Secretary, I understand there are people, frankly, in both 

parties who have suggested that this investigation is about you. 

Let me assure you it is not, and let me assure you why it is not. 

This investigation is about four people who were killed representing our country on foreign soil. It is about what happened before, during, and after the attacks that killed them. It is about 

what this country owes to those who risk their lives to serve it. 

And it is about the fundamental obligation of government to tell 

the truth, always, to the people that it purports to represent. 

Madam Secretary, not a single member of this committee signed 

up to investigate you or your email. We signed up to investigate 

and, therefore, honor the lives of four people that we sent into a 

dangerous country to represent us and to do everything we can to 

prevent it from happening to others. 

Our committee has interviewed half a hundred witnesses. Not a 

single one of them has been named ‘‘Clinton’’ until today. You were 

the Secretary of State for this country at all relevant times, so of 

course the committee is going to want to talk to you. You are an 

important witness. You are one important witness among half a 

hundred important witnesses. 

And I do understand you wanted to come sooner than today, so 

let me be clear why that did not happen. 

You had an unusual email arrangement, which meant the State 

Department could not produce your emails to us. You made exclusive use of personal email and a personal server, and when you left 

the State Department, you kept the public record to yourself for almost two years. And it was you and your attorneys who decided 

what to return and what to delete. Those decisions were your decisions, not our decisions. 

It was only in March of this year we learned of this email arrangement. And since we learned of this email arrangement, we 

have interviewed dozens of witnesses, only one of whom was solely 

related to your email arrangement. And that was the shortest 

interview of all because that witness invoked his Fifth Amendment 

privilege against incrimination. 

Making sure the public record is complete is what serious investigations do, so it was important and remains important that this 

committee have access to all of Ambassador Stevens’ emails, the 

emails of other senior leaders and witnesses, and it is important 

to gain access to all of your emails, Madam Secretary. Your emails 

are no less or no more important than the emails of anyone else. 

It just took us a little bit longer to get them, and it garnered a little more attention in the process. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
5 

I want you to take note during this hearing how many times congressional Democrats call on this administration to make longawaited documents available to us. They won’t. Take note of how 

many witnesses congressional Democrats ask us to schedule for 

interview. They won’t. We would be much closer to finding out 

what happened in writing the final, definitive report if Democrats 

on this committee had helped us, just a little bit, pursue the facts. 

But if the Democrats on this committee had their way, dozens of 

witnesses never would have been interviewed, your public record 

would still be private, thousands of documents never would have 

been accessed, and we wouldn’t have the emails of our own ambassador. That may be smart politics, but it is a lousy way to run a 

serious investigation. 

There are certain characteristics that make our country unique 

in the annals of history. We are the greatest experiment in selfgovernance the world has ever known, and part of that self-governance comes self-scrutiny, even of the highest officials. Our country 

is strong enough to handle the truth, and our fellow citizens expect 

us to pursue the truth wherever the facts take us. 

So this committee is going to do what we pledged to do and what 

should have been done, frankly, a long time ago, which is interview 

all relevant witnesses, examine all relevant evidence, and access all 

relevant documents. And we are going to pursue the truth in a 

manner worthy of the memory of the four people who lost their 

lives and worthy of the respect of our fellow citizens. And we are 

going to write that final, definitive accounting of what happened in 

Benghazi. 

And we would like to do it with your help and the help of our 

Democrat colleagues, but make no mistake, we are going to do it 

nonetheless. Because understanding what happened in Benghazi 

goes to the heart of who we are as a country and the promises we 

make to those that we send into harm’s way. 

They deserve the truth, they deserve the whole truth, they deserve nothing but the truth. The people we work for deserve the 

truth. The friends and family of the four who lost their lives deserve the truth. We are going to find the truth, because there is 

no statute of limitations on the truth. 

With that, I would recognize my friend from Maryland. 

[Prepared statement of Chairman Gowdy follows:] 

Mr. CUMMINGS. The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the 

truth. The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. 

Madam Secretary, I want to thank you very much for being here 

today to testify before Congress on this very important issue. This 

is your third time. 

This week, our chairman, Mr. Gowdy, was interviewed in a 

lengthy media profile. During his interview, he complained that he 

has ‘‘an impossible job.’’ That’s what the chairman said, ‘‘impossible 

job.’’ He said it is impossible to conduct a serious, fact-centric investigation in such a ‘‘political environment.’’ 

I have great respect for the chairman, but on this score, he is absolutely wrong. In fact, it has been done by his own Republican colleagues in the House on this very issue, Benghazi. The Republican 

chairman of the House Intelligence Committee conducted an extensive, bipartisan, 2-year investigation and issued a detailed report. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
6 

The Senate Intelligence Committee and the Senate Homeland Security Committee also conducted bipartisan investigations. 

Those bipartisan efforts respected and honored the memories of 

the four brave Americans who gave their lives in Benghazi: Ambassador Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods, and Glen 

Doherty. 

The problem is that the Republican caucus did not like the answers they got from those investigations. So they set up this select 

committee with no rules, no deadline, and an unlimited budget, 

and they set them loose, Madam Secretary, because you’re running 

for President. 

Clearly, it is possible to conduct a serious, bipartisan investigation. What is impossible is for any reasonable person to continue 

denying that Republicans are squandering millions of taxpayer dollars on this abusive effort to derail Secretary Clinton’s Presidential 

campaign. 

In the chairman’s interview, he tried to defend against this criticism by attempting to cast himself as the victim, and he complained about attacks on the credibility of the select committee. His 

argument would be more compelling if Republicans weren’t leading 

the charge. 

As we all know, Representative Kevin McCarthy, Speaker 

Boehner’s second-in-command and the chairman’s close friend, admitted that they established the select committee to drive down 

Secretary Clinton’s poll numbers. Democrats didn’t say that; the 

second-in-command in the House said that, a Republican. 

Republican Congressman Richard Hanna said the select committee was, ‘‘designed’’—‘‘designed’’ to go after Secretary Clinton. 

And one of the chairman’s own handpicked investigators, a selfproclaimed conservative Republican, charged that he was fired in 

part for not going along with these plans to ‘‘hyper-focus on Hillary 

Clinton.’’ 

These stark admissions reflect exactly what we have seen inside 

the select committee for the past year. Let’s just take a look at the 

facts. 

Since January, Republicans have canceled every single hearing 

on our schedule for the entire year except for this one, Secretary 

Clinton. They also canceled numerous interviews that they had 

planned with the Defense Department and the CIA officials. Instead of doing that, what they were going to do, Republicans zeroed 

in on Secretary Clinton, her speechwriters, her IT staffers, and her 

campaign officials. This is what the Republicans did, not the Democrats. 

When Speaker Boehner established this select committee, he justified it by arguing that it would ‘‘cross jurisdictional lines.’’ I assumed he meant we would focus on more than just Secretary of 

State. 

But, Madam Secretary, you’re sitting there by yourself. The Secretary of Defense is not on your left. The Director of the CIA is not 

on your right. That is because Republicans abandoned their own 

plans to question those top officials. So, instead of being cross-jurisdictional, Republicans just crossed them off the list. 

Last weekend, the chairman told the Republican colleagues to 

shut up and stop talking about the select committee. What I want 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
7 

to know is this, and this is a key question: Why tell the Republicans to shut up when they are telling the truth, but not when 

they are attacking Secretary Clinton with reckless accusations that 

are demonstrably false? Why not tell them to shut up then? 

Carly Fiorina has said that Secretary Clinton has blood on her 

hands. Mike Huckabee accused her of ignoring the warning calls 

from dying Americans in Benghazi. Senator Rand Paul said 

Benghazi was a 3 a.m. phone call that she never picked up. And 

Senator Lindsey Graham tweeted, ‘‘Where the hell were you on the 

night of the Benghazi attack?’’ 

Everyone on this panel knows these accusations are baseless 

from our own investigation and all those before it. Yet Republican 

members of this select committee remain silent. 

On Monday, the Democrats issued a report showing that none of 

the 54 witnesses the committee interviewed substantiated these 

wild Republican claims. Secretary Clinton did not order the military to stand down, and she neither approved nor denied requests 

for additional security. 

I ask that our report be included in the official record for today’s 

hearing, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman GOWDY. Without objection. 

[The information follows:] 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
8 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 20 here 98884.001
9 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 21 here 98884.002
10 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 22 here 98884.003
11 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 23 here 98884.004
12 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 24 here 98884.005
13 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 25 here 98884.006
14 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 26 here 98884.007
15 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 27 here 98884.008
16 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 28 here 98884.009
17 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 29 here 98884.010
18 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 30 here 98884.011
19 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 31 here 98884.012
20 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 32 here 98884.013
21 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 33 here 98884.014
22 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 34 here 98884.015
23 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 35 here 98884.016
24 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 36 here 98884.017
25 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 37 here 98884.018
26 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 38 here 98884.019
27 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 39 here 98884.020
28 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 40 here 98884.021
29 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 41 here 98884.022
30 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 42 here 98884.023
31 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 43 here 98884.024
32 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 44 here 98884.025
33 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 45 here 98884.026
34 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 46 here 98884.027
35 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 47 here 98884.028
36 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 48 here 98884.029
37 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 49 here 98884.030
38 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 50 here 98884.031
39 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 51 here 98884.032
40 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 52 here 98884.033
41 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 53 here 98884.034
42 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 54 here 98884.035
43 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 55 here 98884.036
44 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 56 here 98884.037
45 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 57 here 98884.038
46 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 58 here 98884.039
47 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 59 here 98884.040
48 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 60 here 98884.041
49 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 61 here 98884.042
50 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 62 here 98884.043
51 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 63 here 98884.044
52 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 64 here 98884.045
53 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 65 here 98884.046
54 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 66 here 98884.047
55 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 67 here 98884.048
56 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 68 here 98884.049
57 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 69 here 98884.050
58 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 70 here 98884.051
59 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 71 here 98884.052
60 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 72 here 98884.053
61 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 73 here 98884.054
62 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 74 here 98884.055
63 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 75 here 98884.056
64 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 76 here 98884.057
65 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 77 here 98884.058
66 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 78 here 98884.059
67 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 79 here 98884.060
68 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 80 here 98884.061
69 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 81 here 98884.062
70 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 82 here 98884.063
71 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 83 here 98884.064
72 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 84 here 98884.065
73 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 85 here 98884.066
74 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 86 here 98884.067
75 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 87 here 98884.068
76 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 88 here 98884.069
77 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 89 here 98884.070
78 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 90 here 98884.071
79 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 91 here 98884.072
80 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 92 here 98884.073
81 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 93 here 98884.074
82 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 94 here 98884.075
83 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 95 here 98884.076
84 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 96 here 98884.077
85 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 97 here 98884.078
86 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 98 here 98884.079
87 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 99 here 98884.080
88 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 100 here 98884.081
89 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 101 here 98884.082
90 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 102 here 98884.083
91 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 103 here 98884.084
92 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 104 here 98884.085
93 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 105 here 98884.086
94 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 106 here 98884.087
95 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 107 here 98884.088
96 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 108 here 98884.089
97 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 109 here 98884.090
98 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 110 here 98884.091
99 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 111 here 98884.092
100 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 112 here 98884.093
101 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 113 here 98884.094
102 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 114 here 98884.095
103 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 115 here 98884.096
104 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 116 here 98884.097
105 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 117 here 98884.098
106 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 118 here 98884.099
107 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 119 here 98884.100
108 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 120 here 98884.101
109 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 121 here 98884.102
110 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 122 here 98884.103
111 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 123 here 98884.104
112 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 124 here 98884.105
113 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 125 here 98884.106
114 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 126 here 98884.107
115 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 127 here 98884.108
116 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 128 here 98884.109
117 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 129 here 98884.110
118 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 130 here 98884.111
119 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 131 here 98884.112
120 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 132 here 98884.113
121 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 133 here 98884.114
122 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 134 here 98884.115
123 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 135 here 98884.116
124 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 136 here 98884.117
125 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 137 here 98884.118
126 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 138 here 98884.119
127 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 139 here 98884.120
128 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 140 here 98884.121
129 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 141 here 98884.122
130 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 142 here 98884.123
131 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 143 here 98884.124
132 

Mr. CUMMINGS. What is so telling is that we issued virtually the 

same report a year ago—the same report. 

When we first joined the select committee, I asked my staff to 

put together a complete report and database setting forth the questions that have been asked about the attacks and all of the answers that were provided in the eight previous investigations. 

I ask that this report also be included in the record, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman GOWDY. Without objection. 

[The information follows:] 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
133 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 145 here 98884.125
134 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 146 here 98884.126
135 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 147 here 98884.127
136 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 148 here 98884.128
137 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 149 here 98884.129
138 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 150 here 98884.130
139 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 151 here 98884.131
140 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 152 here 98884.132
141 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 153 here 98884.133
142 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 154 here 98884.134
143 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 155 here 98884.135
144 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 156 here 98884.136
145 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 157 here 98884.137
146 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 158 here 98884.138
147 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 159 here 98884.139
148 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 160 here 98884.140
149 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 161 here 98884.141
150 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 162 here 98884.142
151 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 163 here 98884.143
152 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 164 here 98884.144
153 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 165 here 98884.145
154 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 166 here 98884.146
155 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 167 here 98884.147
156 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 168 here 98884.148
157 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 169 here 98884.149
158 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 170 here 98884.150
159 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 171 here 98884.151
160 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 172 here 98884.152
161 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 173 here 98884.153
162 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 174 here 98884.154
163 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 175 here 98884.155
164 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 176 here 98884.156
165 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 177 here 98884.157
166 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 178 here 98884.158
167 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 179 here 98884.159
168 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 180 here 98884.160
169 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 181 here 98884.161
170 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 182 here 98884.162
171 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 183 here 98884.163
172 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 184 here 98884.164
173 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 185 here 98884.165
174 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 186 here 98884.166
175 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 187 here 98884.167
176 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 188 here 98884.168
177 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 189 here 98884.169
178 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 190 here 98884.170
179 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 191 here 98884.171
180 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 192 here 98884.172
181 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 193 here 98884.173
182 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 194 here 98884.174
183 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 195 here 98884.175
184 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 196 here 98884.176
185 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 197 here 98884.177
186 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 198 here 98884.178
187 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 199 here 98884.179
188 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 200 here 98884.180
189 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 201 here 98884.181
190 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 202 here 98884.182
191 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 203 here 98884.183
192 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 204 here 98884.184
193 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 205 here 98884.185
194 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 206 here 98884.186
195 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 207 here 98884.187
196 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 208 here 98884.188
197 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 209 here 98884.189
198 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 210 here 98884.190
199 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 211 here 98884.191
200 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 212 here 98884.192
201 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 213 here 98884.193
202 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 214 here 98884.194
203 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 215 here 98884.195
204 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 216 here 98884.196
205 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 217 here 98884.197
206 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 218 here 98884.198
207 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 219 here 98884.199
208 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 220 here 98884.200
209 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 221 here 98884.201
210 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 222 here 98884.202
211 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 223 here 98884.203
212 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 224 here 98884.204
213 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 225 here 98884.205
214 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 226 here 98884.206
215 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 227 here 98884.207
216 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 228 here 98884.208
217 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 229 here 98884.209
218 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 230 here 98884.210
219 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 231 here 98884.211
220 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 232 here 98884.212
221 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 233 here 98884.213
222 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 234 here 98884.214
223 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 235 here 98884.215
224 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 236 here 98884.216
225 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 237 here 98884.217
226 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 238 here 98884.218
227 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 239 here 98884.219
228 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 240 here 98884.220
229 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 241 here 98884.221
230 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 242 here 98884.222
231 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 243 here 98884.223
232 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 244 here 98884.224
233 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 245 here 98884.225
234 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 246 here 98884.226
235 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 247 here 98884.227
236 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 248 here 98884.228
237 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 249 here 98884.229
238 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 250 here 98884.230
239 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 251 here 98884.231
240 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 252 here 98884.232
241 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 253 here 98884.233
242 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 254 here 98884.234
243 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 255 here 98884.235
244 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 256 here 98884.236
245 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 257 here 98884.237
246 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 258 here 98884.238
247 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 259 here 98884.239
248 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 260 here 98884.240
249 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 261 here 98884.241
250 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 262 here 98884.242
251 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 263 here 98884.243
252 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 264 here 98884.244
253 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 265 here 98884.245
254 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 266 here 98884.246
255 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 267 here 98884.247
256 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 268 here 98884.248
257 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 269 here 98884.249
258 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 270 here 98884.250
259 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 271 here 98884.251
260 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 272 here 98884.252
261 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 273 here 98884.253
262 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 274 here 98884.254
263 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 275 here 98884.255
264 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 276 here 98884.256
265 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 277 here 98884.257
266 

Mr. CUMMINGS. The problem is that, rather than accepting these 

facts, Republicans continue to spin new conspiracy theories that 

are just as outlandish and inaccurate. 

For example, the chairman recently tried to argue that Sidney 

Blumenthal was Secretary Clinton’s primary advisor on Libya. 

And, this past Sunday, Representative Pompeo claimed on national 

television that Secretary Clinton relied on Sidney Blumenthal for 

most—for most—of her intelligence on Libya. Earlier this week, the 

Washington Post Fact Checker awarded this claim four Pinocchios, 

its worst rating. 

Here is the bottom line: The select committee has spent 17 months and $4.7 million of taxpayer money. We have held four 

hearings and conducted 54 interviews and depositions. Yes, we 

have received some new emails from Secretary Clinton, Ambassador Stevens, and others. And, yes, we have conducted some new 

interviews. But these documents and interviews do not show any 

nefarious activity. In fact, it is just the opposite. The new information we have obtained confirms and corroborates the core facts we 

already knew from eight previous investigations. They provide 

more detail, but they do not change the basic conclusions. 

It is time, and it is time now, for the Republicans to end this taxpayer-funded fishing expedition. We need to come together and 

shift from politics to policy. That is what the American people 

want: shifting from politics to policy. 

We need to finally make good on our promises to the families. 

And the families only asked us to do three things: one, do not make 

this a political football; two, find the facts; three, do everything in 

your power to make sure that this does not happen again. 

And so we need to start focusing on what we here in Congress 

can do to improve the safety and security of our diplomatic corps 

in the future. 

And, with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Cummings follows:] 

Chairman GOWDY. The chair thanks the gentleman from Maryland. 

Madam Secretary, you are recognized for your opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF HILLARY CLINTON, FORMER SECRETARY, U.S. 

DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

Mrs. CLINTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 

Cummings, members of this committee. 

The terrorist attacks at our diplomatic compound and later at 

the CIA post in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11, 2012, took the 

lives of four brave Americans: Ambassador Chris Stevens, Sean 

Smith, Glen Doherty, and Tyrone Woods. 

I’m here to honor the service of those four men, the courage of 

the Diplomatic Security agents and the CIA officers who risked 

their lives that night, and the work their colleagues do every single 

day all over the world. 

I knew and admired Chris Stevens. He was one of our nation’s 

most accomplished diplomats. Chris’ mother liked to say that he 

had sand in his shoes because he was always moving, always working, especially in the Middle East that he came to know so well. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
267 

When the revolution broke out in Libya, we named Chris as our 

envoy to the opposition. There was no easy way to get him into 

Benghazi to begin gathering information and meeting those Libyans who were rising up against the murderous dictator Qadhafi, 

but he found a way to get himself there on a Greek cargo ship, just 

like a 19th-century American envoy. 

But his work was very much 21st-century, hard-nosed diplomacy. 

It is a testament to the relationships that he built in Libya that, 

on the day following the awareness of his death, tens of thousands 

of Libyans poured into the streets in Benghazi. They held signs 

reading, ‘‘Thugs don’t represent Benghazi or Islam’’; ‘‘Sorry, people 

of America. This is not the behavior of our Islam or our prophet’’; 

‘‘Chris Stevens, a friend to all Libyans.’’ 

Although I didn’t have the privilege of meeting Sean Smith personally, he was a valued member of our State Department family. 

An Air Force veteran, he was an information management officer 

who had served in Pretoria, Baghdad, Montreal, and The Hague. 

Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty worked for the CIA. They were 

killed by mortar fire at the CIA’s outpost in Benghazi, a short distance from the diplomatic compound. They were both former Navy 

SEALs and trained paramedics with distinguished records of service, including in Iraq and Afghanistan. 

As Secretary of State, I had the honor to lead and the responsibility to support nearly 70,000 diplomats and development experts 

across the globe. Losing any one of them, as we did in Iraq, Afghanistan, Mexico, Haiti, and Libya, during my tenure was deeply 

painful for our entire State Department and USAID family and for 

me personally. 

I was the one who asked Chris to go to Libya as our envoy. I was 

the one who recommended him to be our Ambassador to the President. After the attacks, I stood next to President Obama as Marines carried his casket and those of the other three Americans off 

the plane at Andrews Air Force Base. 

I took responsibility. And, as part of that, before I left office, I 

launched reforms to better protect our people in the field and help 

reduce the chance of another tragedy happening in the future. 

What happened in Benghazi has been scrutinized by a nonpartisan, hard-hitting Accountability Review Board, seven prior 

congressional investigations, multiple news organizations, and, of 

course, our law enforcement and intelligence agencies. 

So today I would like to share three observations about how we 

can learn from this tragedy and move forward as a nation. 

First, America must lead in a dangerous world, and our diplomats must continue representing us in dangerous places. 

The State Department sends people to more than 270 posts in 

170 countries around the world. Chris Stevens understood that diplomats must operate in many places where our soldiers do not, 

where there are no other boots on the ground and safety is far from 

guaranteed. In fact, he volunteered for just those assignments. 

He also understood we will never prevent every act of terrorism 

or achieve perfect security and that we inevitably must accept a 

level of risk to protect our country and advance our interests and 

values. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
268 

And make no mistake, the risks are real. Terrorists have killed 

more than 65 American diplomatic personnel since the 1970s and 

more than 100 contractors and locally employed staff. Since 2001, 

there have been more than 100 attacks on U.S. diplomatic facilities 

around the world. 

But if you ask our most experienced ambassadors, they’ll tell you 

they can’t do their jobs for us from bunkers. It would compound the 

tragedy of Benghazi if Chris Stevens’ death and the deaths of the 

other three Americans ended up undermining the work to which he 

and they devoted their lives. 

We have learned the hard way, when America is absent, especially from unstable places, there are consequences. Extremism 

takes root, aggressors seek to fill the vacuum, and security everywhere is threatened, including here at home. That’s why Chris was 

in Benghazi. It’s why he had served previously in Syria, Egypt, 

Saudi Arabia, and Jerusalem during the Second Intifada. 

Nobody knew the dangers of Libya better—a weak government, 

extremist groups, rampant instability. But Chris chose to go to 

Benghazi because he understood America had to be represented 

there at that pivotal time. He knew that eastern Libya was where 

the revolution had begun and that unrest there could derail the 

country’s fragile transition to democracy, and if extremists gained 

a foothold, they would have the chance to destabilize the entire region, including Egypt and Tunisia. 

He also knew how urgent it was to ensure that the weapons Qadhafi had left strewn across the country, including shoulder-fired 

missiles that could knock an airplane out of the sky, did not fall 

into the wrong hands. The nearest Israeli airport is just a day’s 

drive from the Libyan border. 

Above all, Chris understood that most people, in Libya or anywhere, reject the extremists’ argument that violence can ever be a 

path to dignity or justice. That’s what those thousands of Libyans 

were saying after they learned of his death. And he understood 

there was no substitute for going beyond the embassy walls and 

doing the hard work of building relationships. 

Retreat from the world is not an option. America cannot shrink 

from our responsibility to lead. That doesn’t mean we should ever 

return to the go-it-alone foreign policy of the past, a foreign policy 

that puts boots on the ground as a first choice rather than a last 

resort. Quite the opposite. We need creative, confident leadership 

that harnesses all of America’s strengths and values, leadership 

that integrates and balances the tools of diplomacy, development, 

and defense. 

And at the heart of that effort must be dedicated professionals, 

like Chris Stevens and his colleagues, who put their lives on the 

line for a country, our country, because they believed, as I do, that 

America is the greatest force for peace and progress the world has 

ever known. 

My second observation is this: we have a responsibility to provide 

our diplomats with the resources and support they need to do their 

jobs as safely and effectively as possible. 

After previous deadly attacks, leaders from both parties and both 

branches of government came together to determine what went 

wrong and how to fix it for the future. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
269 

That’s what happened during the Reagan administration when 

Hezbollah attacked our embassy and killed 63 people, including 17 

Americans, and then, in a later attack, attacked our Marine barracks and killed so many more. Those two attacks in Beirut resulted in the deaths of 258 Americans. 

It’s what happened during the Clinton administration when Al 

Qaeda bombed our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, killing more 

than 200 people, wounding more than 2,000 people, and killing 12 

Americans. And it’s what happened during the Bush administration after 9/11. 

Part of America’s strength is we learn, we adapt, and we get 

stronger. 

After the Benghazi attacks, I asked Ambassador Thomas Pickering, one of our most distinguished and longest-serving diplomats, 

along with Admiral Mike Mullen, the former Chairman of the Joint 

Chiefs of Staff appointed by President George W. Bush, to lead an 

Accountability Review Board. 

This is an institution that the Congress set up after the terrible 

attacks in Beirut. There have been 18 previous Accountability Review Boards. Only two have ever made any of their findings public: 

the one following the attacks on our embassies in East Africa and 

the one following the attack on Benghazi. 

The Accountability Review Board did not pull a single punch. 

They found systemic problems and management deficiencies in two 

State Department bureaus. And the Review Board recommended 

29 specific improvements. I pledged that by the time I left office 

every one would be on the way to implementation, and they were. 

More Marines were slated for deployment to high-threat embassies. 

Additional Diplomatic Security agents were being hired and 

trained. And Secretary Kerry has continued this work. 

But there is more to do, and no administration can do it alone. 

Congress has to be our partner, as it has been after previous tragedies. For example, the Accountability Review Board and subsequent investigations have recommended improved training for our 

officers before they deploy to the field, but efforts to establish a 

modern joint training center are being held up by Congress. The 

men and women who serve our country deserve better. 

Finally, there is one more observation I would like to share. I 

traveled to 112 countries as Secretary of State. Every time I did, 

I felt great pride and honor representing the country that I love. 

We need leadership at home to match our leadership abroad, leadership that puts national security ahead of politics and ideology. 

Our nation has a long history of bipartisan cooperation on foreign policy and national security. Not that we always agree—far 

from it—but we do come together when it counts. 

As Secretary of State, I worked with the Republican chairman of 

the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to pass a landmark nuclear arms control treaty with Russia. I worked with the Republican leader, Senator Mitch McConnell, to open up Burma, now 

Myanmar, to democratic change. I know it’s possible to find common ground, because I have done it. 

We should debate on the basis of fact, not fear. We should resist 

denigrating the patriotism or loyalty of those with whom we disagree. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
270 

So I’m here. Despite all the previous investigations and all the 

talk about partisan agendas, I’m here to honor those we lost and 

to do what I can to aid those who serve us still. 

My challenge to you, members of this committee, is the same 

challenge I put to myself: let’s be worthy of the trust the American 

people have bestowed upon us. They expect us to lead, to learn the 

right lessons, to rise above partisanship, and to reach for statesmanship. That’s what I tried to do every day as Secretary of State, 

and it’s what I hope we will all strive for here today and into the 

future. 

Thank you. 

[Prepared statement of Mrs. Clinton follows:] 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
271 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 289 here 98884.258
272 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 290 here 98884.259
273 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 291 here 98884.260
274 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 292 here 98884.261
275 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 293 here 98884.262
276 

Chairman GOWDY. Thank you, Madam Secretary. 

I did not cut off your opening at all, nor would I think about 

doing so, because the subject matter is critically important, and 

you deserve to be heard. I would just simply note that—and I don’t 

plan on cutting off any of your answers. 

Our members have questions that we believe are worthy of being 

answered, so I would just simply note that we do plan to ask all 

of the questions. And whatever precision and concision that you 

can give to the answers without giving short shrift to any of the 

answers would be much appreciated. 

And, with that, I would recognize the gentleman from Illinois, 

Mr. Roskam. 

Mr. ROSKAM. Good morning, Secretary Clinton. 

Jake Sullivan, your chief foreign policy advisor, wrote a ‘‘tick tock 

on Libya’’ memo on August 21, 2011. And this was the day before 

the rebels took Tripoli. He titles it, ‘‘Secretary Clinton’s leadership 

on Libya,’’ in which he describes you as, ‘‘a critical voice’’ and, ‘‘the 

public face of the U.S. effort in Libya and instrumental in tightening the noose around Qadhafi and his regime.’’ 

But that didn’t come easy, did it? Because you faced considerable 

opposition—and I can pause while you are reading your notes from 

your staff. 

Mrs. CLINTON. No, that’s fine. I’m listening. I can do more than 

one thing at a time, Congressman. Thanks. 

Mr. ROSKAM. Okay. 

That didn’t come easy, did it, that leadership role and that public 

face and so forth that I just mentioned? 

Mrs. CLINTON. No, Congressman. I know this is an issue that the 

committee has raised, and it really boils down to why were we in 

Libya, why did the United States join with our NATO and European allies, join with our Arab partners to protect the people of 

Libya against the murderous planning of Qadhafi, why did we take 

a role alongside our partners in doing so. 

There were a number of reasons for that. And I think it is important to remind the American people where we were at the time 

when the people of Libya, like people across the region, rose up demanding freedom and democracy, a chance to chart their own futures. 

And Qadhafi—— 

Mr. ROSKAM. I take your point—— 

Mrs. CLINTON [continuing]. Qadhafi threatened them with genocide, with hunting them down like cockroaches. 

And we were then approached by, with great intensity, our closest allies in Europe, people who felt very strongly, the French and 

the British but others as well, that they could not stand idly by 

and permit that to happen so close to their shores, with the unintended consequences that they worried about, and they asked for 

the United States to help. 

We did not immediately say yes. We did an enormous amount of 

due diligence in meeting with not only our European and Arab 

partners but also with those who were heading up what was called 

the Transitional National Council. And we had experienced diplomats who were digging deep into what was happening in Libya 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
277 

and what the possibilities were before we agreed to provide very 

specific, limited help to the European and Arab efforts. 

We did not put one American soldier on the ground. We did not 

have one casualty. And, in fact, I think by many measures, the cooperation between NATO and Arab forces was quite remarkable 

and something that we want to learn more lessons from. 

Mr. ROSKAM. Secretary Clinton, you were meeting with opposition within the State Department, from very senior career diplomats in fact, and they were saying that it was going to produce 

a net negative for U.S. military intervention. 

For example, in a March 9, 2011, email discussing what has become known as the ‘‘Libya options memo,’’ Ambassador Stephen 

Mull, then the Executive Secretary at the State Department and 

one of the top career diplomats, said this: ‘‘In the case of our diplomatic history, when we’ve provided material or tactical military 

support to people seeking to drive their leaders from power, no 

matter how just their cause, it’s tended to produce net negatives 

for our interests over the long term in those countries.’’ 

Now, we will come back to that in a minute. But you overruled 

those career diplomats. I mean, they report to you, and you are the 

chief diplomat of the United States. 

Go ahead and read the note if you need to. 

Mrs. CLINTON. I have to—I have to—— 

Mr. ROSKAM. I’m not done with my question. I’m just giving you 

the courtesy of reading your notes. 

Mrs. CLINTON. That’s all right. 

Mr. ROSKAM. All right. 

They were pushing back, but you overcame those objections. But 

then you had another big obstacle, didn’t you, and that was the 

White House itself? There were senior voices within the White 

House that were opposed to military action: Vice President Biden, 

Department of Defense, Secretary Gates, the National Security 

Council, and so forth. 

But you persuaded President Obama to intervene militarily. Isn’t 

that right? 

Mrs. CLINTON. Well, Congressman, I think it’s important to point 

out there were many in the State Department who believed it was 

very much in America’s interest and in furtherance of our values 

to protect the Libyan people, to join with our European allies and 

our Arab partners. 

The Ambassador who had to be withdrawn from Libya because 

of direct threats to his physical safety but who knew Libya very 

well, Ambassador Cretz, was a strong advocate for doing what we 

could to assist the Europeans and the Arabs. 

I think it’s fair to say there were concerns and there were varying opinions about what to do, how to do it, and the like. 

At the end of the day, this was the President’s decision, and all 

of us fed in our views. I did not favor it until I had done, as I said, 

the due diligence, speaking with not just people within our government and within the governments of all of the other nations who 

were urging us to assist them but also meeting in person with the 

gentleman who had assumed a lead role in the Transitional National Council. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
278 

So it is, of course, fair to say this was a difficult decision. I 

wouldn’t sit here and say otherwise. And there were varying points 

of view about it. But at the end of the day, in large measure because of the strong appeals from our European allies, the Arab 

League passing a resolution urging that the United States and 

NATO join with them, those were unprecedented requests, and we 

did decide in recommending to the President that there was a way 

to do it. 

The President, I think, very clearly had a limited instruction 

about how to proceed. And the first planes that flew were French 

planes. And I think what the United States provided was some of 

our unique capacity, but the bulk of the work militarily was done 

by Europeans and Arabs. 

Mr. ROSKAM. Well, I think you are underselling yourself. You got 

the State Department on board. You convinced the President. You 

overcame the objections of Vice President Biden and Secretary of 

Defense Gates, the National Security Council. 

And you had another obstacle then, and that was the United Nations. And you were able to persuade the Russians, of all things, 

to abstain. And had you not been successful in arguing that abstention, the Security Council Resolution 1973 wouldn’t have passed 

because the Russians had a veto. 

So you overcame that obstacle, as well. Isn’t that right? 

Mrs. CLINTON. Well, Congressman, it is right that, after doing 

my due diligence and reviewing the various options and the potential consequences of pursuing each of them, I was in favor of the 

United States joining with our European allies and our Arab partners. And I also was in favor of obtaining U.N. Security Council 

support, because I thought that would provide greater legitimacy. 

In that, of course, our Ambassador to the U.N. was very 

uninfluential and successful in making the case to her colleagues. 

But this was at the behest of and the direction of the President 

once he was presented with the varying arguments. 

And, you know—— 

Mr. ROSKAM. And you presented the argument—— 

Mrs. CLINTON [continuing]. Congressman, I have been in a number of Situation Room discussions. I remember very well the very 

intense conversation over whether or not to launch the Navy 

SEALs against the compound we thought in Abbottabad that might 

house bin Laden. There was a split in the advisors around the 

President. Eventually the President makes the decision. 

I supported doing what we could to support our European and 

Arab partners in their effort on a humanitarian basis, a strategic 

basis, to prevent Qadhafi from launching and carrying out mass 

massacres. 

Mr. ROSKAM. There was another obstacle that you overcame, and 

that was the Arabs themselves. Jake Sullivan sent you an email, 

and he said this: ‘‘I think you should call. It will be a painful ten 

minutes, but you will be the one who delivered Arab support.’’ And 

that’s a Jake Sullivan email of March 17 to you asking you to call 

the Secretary General of the Arab League. 

So, to put this in totality, you were able to overcome opposition 

within the State Department, you were able to persuade the President, you were able to persuade the United Nations and the interVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:25 Apr 05, 2016 Jkt 098884 PO 00000 Frm 00280 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\B884P2.XXX B884P2

srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
279 

national community, you made the call to the Arabs and brought 

them home. You saw it, you drove it, you articulated it, and you 

persuaded people. 

Did I get that wrong? 

Mrs. CLINTON. Well, Congressman, I was the Secretary of State. 

My job was to conduct the diplomacy. And the diplomacy consisted 

of a long series of meetings and phone calls, both here in our country and abroad, to take the measure of what people were saying 

and whether they meant it. 

We had heard sometimes before from countries saying, ‘‘Well, the 

United States should go do this.’’ And when we say, ‘‘Well, what 

will you do in support of us?’’, there was not much coming forth. 

This time, if they wanted us to support them in what they saw as 

an action vital to their respective national security interests, I 

wanted to be sure that they were going to bear the bulk of the load. 

And, in fact, they did. What the United States did, as I’ve said, 

was use our unique capacities. As I recall, if you want it in monetary terms, slightly over a billion dollars, or less than what we 

spend in Iraq in one day, is what the United States committed in 

support of our allies. 

You know, we ask our—— 

Mr. ROSKAM. Reclaiming my time—— 

Mrs. CLINTON [continuing]. Allies to do a lot for us, Congressman—— 

Mr. ROSKAM. My time is expiring. Let me reclaim my time. 

Mrs. CLINTON. They had asked for us to help them. 

Mr. ROSKAM. Let me reclaim my time because it’s expiring. 

Actually, you summed it up best when you emailed your senior 

staff and you said of this interchange, you said, ‘‘It’s good to remind 

ourselves and the rest of the world that this couldn’t have happened without us.’’ And you were right, Secretary Clinton. Our 

Libya policy couldn’t have happened without you because you were 

its chief architect. 

And I said we’re going to go back to Admiral Mullen’s warning 

about using military for regime change. And he said, ‘‘Long term, 

things weren’t going to turn out very well.’’ And he was right. After 

your plan, things in Libya today are a disaster. 

I yield back. 

Mrs. CLINTON. Well, we’ll have more time, I’m sure, to talk about 

this, because that’s not a view that I will ascribe to. 

Chairman GOWDY. I thank the gentleman from Illinois and recognize the gentleman from Maryland. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much. 

Madam Secretary, again, I want to thank you for being here. 

I want to start with the number one question that Republicans 

claim has not been answered in the eight previous investigations. 

Yesterday, the chairman wrote an op-ed, and he said this is his top 

unanswered question about Benghazi. And it is, ‘‘why our people in 

Libya and Benghazi made so many requests for additional security 

personnel and equipment and why those requests were denied.’’ I 

will give you a chance to answer that in a minute. 

Secretary Clinton, as you know, this exact question has been 

asked many times and answered many times. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
280 

Let’s start with the Accountability Review Board. Now, a moment ago, you talked about Admiral Mullen, but you also appointed 

another very distinguished gentleman, Ambassador Pickering. And, 

of course, Admiral Mullen served under Republican administrations. And Ambassador Pickering, who I have a phenomenal 

amount of respect for, served 40 years, as you know, as part of our 

diplomatic corps. He served under George H.W. Bush, and he also 

served as U.N. Ambassador under Reagan. 

Now, I am just wondering—let me go back to that question, why 

our people in Libya and Benghazi made so many requests? 

And then I want you to comment. There seems to be an implication that the ARB, the Accountability Review Board, was not independent. And I think the chairman said they were handpicked by 

you. Of course, that is done by law. 

But would you comment on those two things, please? 

Mrs. CLINTON. Yes. I would be happy to. 

You know, as I said in my opening statement, I take responsibility for what happened in Benghazi. I felt a responsibility for all 

70,000 people working at the State Department and USAID. I take 

that very seriously. 

As I said with respect to security requests in Benghazi back 

when I testified in January of 2013, those requests and issues related to security were rightly handled by the security professionals 

in the Department. I did not see them, I did not approve them, I 

did not deny them. 

Ambassador Pickering and Admiral Mullen make this case very 

clearly in their testimony before your committee and in their public 

comments. These issues would not ordinarily come before the Secretary of State, and they did not in this case. 

As Secretary, I was committed to taking aggressive measures to 

ensure our personnel and facilities were as safe as possible. And, 

certainly, when the nonpartisan, critical report from the Accountability Review Board came forward, I took it very seriously. And 

that’s why I embraced all of their recommendations and created a 

new position within the Diplomatic Security Bureau specifically to 

evaluate high-risk posts. 

I think it’s important also to mention, Congressman, that the 

Diplomatic Security professionals who were reviewing these requests, along with those who are serving in war zones and hotspots 

around the world, have great expertise and experience in keeping 

people safe. If you go on codels, they are the ones who plan your 

trip to keep you safe. They certainly did that for me. But, most importantly, that’s what they do every day for everybody who serves 

our country as a diplomat or a development professional. And I was 

not going to second-guess them. I was not going to substitute my 

judgment, which is not based on experience that they have in keeping people safe, for theirs. 

And the changes that were recommended by the Accountability 

Review Board are ones that we thought made sense and began 

quickly to implement. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Now, the ARB, after conducting, Madam Secretary, more than 100 interviews, identified a specific employee at 

the State Department who denied these requests. It was Deputy 

Assistant Secretary of the Bureau of Diplomatic Security Charlene 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
281 

Lamb. And, again, she did come before the Oversight Committee. 

The ARB report was very critical of her. It was also critical of her 

two supervisors, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary and the Assistant Secretary for Diplomatic Security. 

The Oversight Committee found the same answer as the ARB. It 

found that this official denied these requests, and it found no evidence that you approved or denied them. The problem is that Republicans just keep asking the same question over and over again 

and pretend they don’t know the answer. In 2013, the Republican 

chairmen of five House committees issued a report falsely accusing 

you personally of denying these requests in a cable over your signature. The next day—the next day—the chairman of the Oversight 

Committee, Darrell Issa, went on national television and accused 

you of the same thing. 

Can we play that clip, please? 

[Video shown.] 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Do you remember that allegation, Madam Secretary? 

Mrs. CLINTON. I do. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Well, when the Washington Post Fact Checker 

examined this claim, they gave it four Pinocchios. They called it a 

whopper. It turns out that the Republicans had a copy of that 

cable, but they didn’t tell the American people that your so-called 

signature was just a stamp that appears on millions of cables from 

the State Department every single year. Is that right? 

Mrs. CLINTON. That’s correct. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Now, Madam Secretary, my goal has always 

been to gather facts and to defend the truth, the whole truth and 

nothing but the truth. Last year, I asked our staff to compile an 

asked-and-answered database, and this particular issue was answered thoroughly. 

On Monday, we put out another report, and this issue was addressed yet again. But the Republicans want to keep this attack 

going, so they are now trying to argue that we have new emails 

that raise new questions. 

The truth is that we have reviewed these emails, and they don’t 

contradict our previous conclusions; they confirm them. They corroborate them. We’ve reviewed emails from Ambassador Stevens, 

and they show that he asked Charlene Lamb for more security. 

Nothing we have obtained, not the new interviews or the new 

emails, changes the basic facts we have known for three years. 

Secretary Clinton, let me ask one final question, and please take 

as much time as you want to answer this. There’s no evidence to 

support the Republican claims that you personally rejected security 

requests. So some have argued that since you knew the danger was 

increasing in Libya, you should have been in there making detailed 

decisions about whether there should be five, seven, or even nine 

security officers at any given post. Madam Secretary, I know you 

have answered this over again. You might want to just elaborate, 

and just—I’ll give you—I have a minute and seven seconds. 

Mrs. CLINTON. Well, thank you, Congressman. I think there has 

been some confusion, and I welcome the opportunity to try to clarify it to the best of my ability. With respect, as you rightly point 

out, the claims that were made about the cables, I think you have 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
282 

explained the fact, which is that it’s the longstanding tradition of 

the State Department for cables from around the world to be sent 

to and sent from the State Department under the signature, over 

the signature of the Secretary of State. It’s a stamp. It’s just part 

of the tradition. There are millions of them, as you point out. They 

are sorted through and directed to the appropriate personnel. Very 

few of them ever come to my attention. None of them with respect 

to security regarding Benghazi did. 

Then the other point, which I thank you for raising so that perhaps I can speak to this one as well, there is, of course, information 

that we were obtaining about the increasingly dangerous environment in Libya, across the country but in particular in eastern 

Libya. And we were aware of that, and we were certainly taking 

that into account. 

There was no actionable intelligence on September 11 or even before that date about any kind of planned attack on our compound 

in Benghazi. And there were a lot of debates, apparently, that went 

on within the security professionals about what to provide because 

they did have to prioritize. The Accountability Review Board pointed that out. The State Department has historically and certainly 

before this terrible incident not had the amount of money that we 

thought would be necessary to do what was required to protect everyone, so of course there had to be priorities. And that was something that the security professionals dealt with. I think that both 

Admiral Mullen and Ambassador Pickering made it very clear that 

they thought that the high-threat posts should move to a higher 

level of scrutiny, and we had immediately moved to do that. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you. 

Chairman GOWDY. I thank the gentleman. 

The chair would now recognize the gentlelady from Indiana, Mrs. 

Brooks. 

Mrs. BROOKS. Good morning, Secretary Clinton. 

Mrs. CLINTON. Morning. 

Mrs. BROOKS. Thank you for being here today. 

And drawing on what you just said, that very few, but no requests for Benghazi came to your attention, I’d like to show you 

something. This pile represents the emails that you sent or received about Libya in 2011, from February through December of 

2011. This pile represents the emails you sent or received from 

early 2012 until the day of the attack. There are 795 emails in this 

pile. We’ve counted them. There are 67 emails in this pile in 2012. 

And I’m troubled by what I see here, and so my questions relate 

to these piles. 

In this pile in 2011, I see daily updates, sometimes hourly updates, from your staff about Benghazi and Chris Stevens. When I 

look at this pile in 2012, I only see a handful of emails to you from 

your senior staff about Benghazi. And I have several questions for 

you about this disparity because we know from talking to your senior advisors that they knew—and many of them are here today 

seated behind you—they knew to send you important information, 

issues that were of importance to you. And I can only conclude by 

your own records that there was a lack of interest in Libya in 2012. 

So let’s first focus, though, on this pile and what was happening 

in Libya in 2011. We have an Ambassador to Libya, Ambassador 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
283 

Cretz, but you’ve told us that—and you told us in your opening you 

hand-picked Chris Stevens to be your Special Representative in 

Benghazi, and you sent him there. And by your own emails—most 

provided last February, a few provided just a few weeks ago—they 

show that in March of 2011, so we’re in March of 2011, you had 

Chris Stevens join you in Paris, where you were meeting with the 

leader of the Libyan revolution. And after Paris, that is when, as 

you talked about, Chris Stevens went into Benghazi, I believe on 

April 5 of 2011, on that Greek cargo ship. 

How long was he expected to stay? What were Chris Stevens’ orders from you about Libya and about Benghazi specifically? 

Mrs. CLINTON. Chris Stevens was asked to go to Benghazi to do 

reconnaissance to try to figure out who were the leaders of the insurgency who were based in Benghazi, what their goals were, what 

they understood would happen if they were successful. It was, as 

I said, the hard-nosed 21st century diplomacy that is rooted in the 

old-fashioned necessary work of building relationships and gathering information. 

Mrs. BROOKS. How long was he anticipated to stay in Benghazi? 

Do you recall? 

Mrs. CLINTON. There were—it was open ended. We were, in discussing it with him, unsure as to how productive it would be, 

whether it would be appropriate for him to stay for a long time or 

a short time. That was very much going to depend upon Chris’ own 

assessment. We knew we were sending someone who understood 

the area, who understood the language, who understood a lot of the 

personalities because of the historical study that he used to love to 

do, and we were going to be guided by what he decided. 

Mrs. BROOKS. I’d like to draw your attention to an email. It’s an 

email found at tab 1. It’s an Ops Center email that was forwarded 

to you from Huma Abedin on Sunday, March 27, that says at the 

bottom of the email: ‘‘so the current game plan is for Mr. Stevens 

to move no later Wednesday from Malta to Benghazi.’’ But the bottom of the email says the goal of this one-day trip is for him to lay 

the groundwork for a stay of up to 30 days. 

So just to refresh that recollection, I believe initially the goal was 

to go in for 30 days. Were you personally briefed on his security 

plan prior to him going into Libya, because—— 

Mrs. CLINTON. Yes. 

Mrs. BROOKS [continuing]. At that time, if I’m not mistaken—I’m 

sorry to interrupt—Qadhafi’s forces were still battling the rebels. 

Correct? 

Mrs. CLINTON. That—that—that’s right. 

Mrs. BROOKS. And so what were—were you personally briefed before you sent Mr. Stevens into Benghazi? 

Mrs. CLINTON. I was personally told by the officials who were in 

the State Department who were immediately above Chris, who 

were making the plans for him to go in, that it was going to be expeditionary diplomacy. It was going to require him to make a lot 

of judgments on the ground about what he could accomplish and 

including where it would be safe for him to be and how long for 

him to stay. And I think the initial decision was, you know, up to 

30 days and reassess, but it could have been ten days, it could have 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
284 

been 60 days, depending upon what he found and what he reported 

back to us. 

Mrs. BROOKS. And possibly what was determined about the danger of Benghazi. 

Who were those officials, Secretary Clinton? 

Mrs. CLINTON. Well, there were a number of officials who were 

working—— 

Mrs. BROOKS. That were advising you on the security specifically. 

Mrs. CLINTON. Well, with respect to the security, this was a particular concern of the Assistant Secretary for the bureau in which 

Chris worked, and—— 

Mrs. BROOKS. And I’m sorry. What was that person’s name? 

Mrs. CLINTON. Assistant Secretary Jeff Feltman. 

Mrs. BROOKS. Thank you. 

Mrs. CLINTON. And it was also a concern of the Assistant Secretary for Diplomatic Security as well as other officials within the 

State Department. And I think it’s fair to say, Congresswoman, 

this was, we all knew, a risky undertaking. And it was something 

that was, as I said in my opening statement, more reminiscent of 

the way diplomacy was practiced back in the 19th century because 

we didn’t have the internet; we didn’t have instantaneous communications. You would send diplomats and envoys into places and 

not hear from them for maybe months. This was obviously not of 

that kind, but it was not that different in degree from what we 

have done before. And it was a risky undertaking and one which 

Chris volunteered for and was anxious to undertake. 

Mrs. BROOKS. And it was so risky, I’d like to pull up another 

email from the Ops Center that was forwarded to you from Ms. 

Abedin on Sunday, April 10. So he had been there about five days, 

and it indicates that the situation in Ajdabiya had worsened to the 

point where Stevens is considering departing from Benghazi. This 

is within five days of him going in. Were you aware of that concern 

within the first five days that he had gone in—— 

Mrs. CLINTON. Yes. 

Mrs. BROOKS [continuing]. And did anyone share that with 

you—— 

Mrs. CLINTON. Yes. 

Mrs. BROOKS [continuing]. And who did you share that with you? 

Mrs. CLINTON. We were aware because we were really counting 

on Chris to guide us and give us the information from the ground. 

We had no other sources. You know, there was no American outpost. There was no, you know, American military presence. Eventually, other Americans representing different agencies were able to 

get into Benghazi and begin to do the same work, but they, of 

course, couldn’t do that work overtly, which is why we wanted a 

diplomat who could be publicly meeting with people to try to get 

the best assessment. But it was always going to be a constant risk, 

and we knew that. 

Mrs. BROOKS. And so let me go back to the risk in 2011 because 

there was a lot of communication, again, once again from your senior staff, from the State Department to you or from you in 2011. 

And, in fact, that is when Qadhafi fell. He fell in 2011. But then 

when we go to 2012, Libya, Benghazi, Chris Stevens, the staff 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
285 

there, they seem to fall off your radar in 2012, and the situation 

is getting much worse in 2012. It was getting much worse. 

And let me just share for you, in your records that we have reviewed, there is not one email to you or from you in 2012 when an 

explosive device went off at our compound in April. There’s not a 

single email in your records about that explosive device. 

So my question is: this was a very important mission in 2011. 

You sent Chris Stevens there, but yet when our compound is attacked in 2012, what kind of culture was created in the State Department that your folks couldn’t tell you in an email about a bomb 

in April of 2012? 

Mrs. CLINTON. Well, Congresswoman, I did not conduct most of 

the business that I did on behalf of our country on email. I conducted it in meetings. I read massive amounts of memos, a great 

deal of classified information. I made a lot of secure phone calls. 

I was in and out of the White House all the time. There were a 

lot of things that happened that I was aware of and that I was reacting to. If you were to be in my office in the State Department, 

I didn’t have a computer. I did not do the vast majority of my work 

on email. And I bet there’s a lot of Sid Blumenthal’s emails in 

there from 2011 too. 

Mrs. BROOKS. Well, we’ll go into that later. 

Mrs. CLINTON. And so I think that there were—I don’t want you 

to have a mistaken impression about what I did and how I did it. 

Most of my work was not done on emails with my closest aides, 

with the officials in the State Department, officials in the rest of 

the government, as well as the White House, and people around 

the world. 

Mrs. BROOKS. And thank you for sharing that because I’m sure 

that it’s not all done on emails, Madam Secretary, and there are 

meetings, and there are discussions. And so then when our compound took a second attack on June 6, when a bomb blew a wall 

through the compound then, no emails, no emails at all, but I am 

interested in knowing who were you meeting with, who were you 

huddling with, how were you informed about those things, because 

there is nothing in the emails that talks about two significant attacks on our compounds in 2012? 

Mrs. CLINTON. I was meeting—— 

Mrs. BROOKS. There is a lot of information in 2011 about issues 

in security posture and yet nothing in 2012. 

Mrs. CLINTON. Well, I’d be happy to explain. Every morning 

when I arrived at the State Department, usually between 8:00 and 

8:30, I had a personal one-on-one briefing from the representative 

of the Central Intelligence Agency, who shared with me the highest 

level of classified information that I was to be aware of on a daily 

basis. I then had a meeting with the top officials of the State Department every day that I was in town. That’s where a lot of information, including threats and attacks on our facilities, was shared. 

I also had a weekly meeting every Monday with all of the officials, 

the Assistant Secretaries and others, so that I could be brought upto-date on any issue that they were concerned about. During the 

day, I received hundreds of pages of memos, many of them classified, some of them so top secret that they were brought into my office in a locked briefcase that I had to read and immediately return 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
286 

to the courier. And I was constantly at the White House in the Situation Room meeting with the National Security Advisor and others. I would also be meeting with officials in the State Department, 

foreign officials and others. 

So there was a lot going on during every day. I did not email 

during the day, and—except on rare occasions when I was able to. 

But I didn’t conduct the business that I did primarily on email. 

That is not how I gathered information, assessed information, 

asked the hard questions of the people that I worked with. 

Mrs. BROOKS. It appears that leaving Benghazi, with respect to 

all of that danger, leaving Benghazi was not an option in 2012. 

And I yield back. 

Chairman GOWDY. The gentlelady—— 

Mrs. CLINTON. Well, if I could just quickly respond. There was 

never a recommendation from any intelligence official in our government, from any official in the State Department, or from any 

other person with knowledge of our presence in Benghazi to shut 

down Benghazi, even after the two attacks that the compound suffered. And perhaps, you know, you would wonder why, but I can 

tell you that it was thought that the mission in Benghazi, in conjunction with the CIA mission, was vital to our national interests. 

Chairman GOWDY. The gentlelady from Indiana yields back. 

The chair will now briefly recognize Mr. Cummings and then Ms. 

Duckworth. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I just want to clarify, when I was asking Secretary Clinton a 

question a moment ago, I mentioned an email that had gone from 

Ambassador Chris Stevens to Deputy Secretary Lamb. What I 

meant to say was a cable, and I just wanted to make sure the 

record was clear. 

Chairman GOWDY. The record will reflect that. 

Ms. Duckworth. 

Ms. DUCKWORTH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Secretary Clinton, I’m pleased that you finally have the opportunity to be here. 

Before I start my line of questioning, I just want to clarify with 

regard to the April, June 2012 incidents, I believe that the procedure that the State Department had for these types of incidents 

was to actually hold what are called Emergency Action Committee 

hearings on the ground immediately. And, in fact, there were at 

least five on the record for June alone on the ground in both Tripoli 

and Benghazi. And that is the correct procedure for handling such 

instances. Is that not correct? 

Mrs. CLINTON. That’s correct. 

Ms. DUCKWORTH. Thank you. 

Secretary Clinton, my focus and my job on this committee is to 

make sure that we never put brave Americans, like Ambassador 

Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods, and Glen Doherty, ever on the 

ground again anywhere in the world without the protection that 

they so rightly deserve. Having flown combat missions myself and 

in some dangerous places, I understand the dedication of our men 

and women who choose to serve this country overseas. 

I have a special affinity for the diplomatic corps because these 

are folks who go in without the benefit of weapons, without the 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
287 

benefit of military might, armed only with America’s values, diplomatic words and a handshake to forward our Nation’s interests 

globally. So I am absolutely determined to make sure that we safeguard, in the name of our heroic dead, our men and women in the 

diplomatic corps wherever they are around the world. 

So the bottom line for me—I’m a very mission-driven person. The 

bottom line for me is, with respect to examining what went wrong 

in Benghazi, clear: let’s learn from those mistakes, and let’s figure 

out what we need to do to fix them. 

I’ve only been in Congress not quite 3 years, almost 3 years. And 

in this time, I’ve actually served on two other committees in addition to this one that looked at the Benghazi attacks, both Armed 

Services and Oversight and Government Reform, so I’ve had a 

chance to really look at all of these documents. One of the things 

that I saw—and I’d like to discuss this with you—is that the Department of State and the Department of Defense at the time seem 

to have not had the most ideal cooperation when it came to threat 

or security analysis. I do know, however, that over the past decade, 

they’ve established a tradition of working together on the ground 

in dangerous regions that has increased over time. 

However, as a member of the Armed Services Committee, which 

also looked at the Benghazi attacks, I’m concerned that the interagency cooperation between State and DOD was not sufficient in 

the weeks and months leading up to the September 11, 2012, attacks. For example, the joint contingency planning and training exercises, if we had conducted any joint interagency planning and 

training exercises, this may have actually helped State and DOD 

to identify and fix existing vulnerabilities in the temporary mission 

facility in Benghazi. 

Moreover, regular communications between AFRICOM, which is 

the DOD command, and the Special Mission Benghazi could have 

facilitated the prepositioning of military assets in a region where 

there were very real questions over the host country’s ability to 

protect our diplomatic personnel. 

Secretary Clinton, within the weeks of the terrorist attacks in 

Benghazi happening, following that, I understand you partnered 

with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to establish and deploy five Interagency Security Assessment Teams to assess our security posture and needs at at least the 19 high-threat posts in 13 

different countries. In fact, Deputy Secretary Nides testified before 

the House Foreign Affairs Committee in December of 2012 that the 

State Department and DOD ISAT initiative created a roadmap for 

addressing emerging security challenges. 

Why did you partner with the Department of Defense to conduct 

such a high-priority review, and was it effective in addressing the 

shortfalls in Benghazi and applying it for other locations? 

Mrs. CLINTON. Congressman, thank—Congresswoman, thank you 

very much, and thanks for your service and particularly your 

knowledge about these issues arising from your own military service and the service on the committees here in the House. 

It’s very challenging to get military assets into countries that 

don’t want them there. And, in fact, that has been a constant issue 

that we have worked between the State Department and the Department of Defense. The Libyans made it very clear from the very 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
288 

beginning they did not want any American military or any foreign 

military at all in their country. And what I concluded is that we 

needed to have these assessments because even if we couldn’t post 

our own military in the country, we needed to have a faster reaction. 

Now, I certainly agree 100 percent with the findings of the 

Armed Services Committee here in the House and other investigations. Our military did everything they could. They turned over 

every rock. They tried to deploy as best they could to try to get to 

Benghazi. It was beyond the geographic range. They didn’t have assets nearby because we don’t have a lot of installations and military personnel that are in that immediate region. 

So following what happened in Benghazi, the Chairman of the 

Joint Chiefs, General Dempsey, and I agreed to send out mixed 

teams of our diplomatic security and their top security experts from 

the Defense Department to get a better idea of the 19 high-threat 

posts. And that’s exactly what we did. And it gave us some guidance to try to have better planning ahead of time. 

I know Admiral Mullen testified that it would be beyond the 

scope of our military to be able to provide immediate reaction to 

270 posts, but that’s why we tried to narrow down. 

And, of course, we do get help from our military in war zones. 

The military has been incredibly supportive of our Embassy in 

Kabul and our Embassy in Baghdad, but we have a lot of hot spots 

now and very dangerous places that are not in military conflict 

areas where we have American military presence, so we wanted to 

figure out how we could get more quickly a fast reaction team to 

try to help prevent what happened in Benghazi. 

Ms. DUCKWORTH. Thank you. So this ISAT process with the joint 

teams of DOD and State that goes out and initially looked at the 

19 posts, that’s great that they come out—back with a report. It’s 

kind of like, you know, the seven reports for this, and now we have 

another committee. We can keep having committees to look into 

Benghazi, but we never act on them. It doesn’t help our men and 

women on the ground, and that’s what I’m focused on. 

So what I want to know is with these ISATs, so they came back 

with their recommendations to you. Have they been resourced? Are 

they institutionalized? What has been done with this process so 

that it’s not a snapshot in time in reaction to the Benghazi attack? 

And I want to make sure that, you know, at the very least, we are 

continuing the cooperation, or at least there’s some sort of institutionalization of the review process to make sure that if it’s not 

those 19 posts, if the shift now is there’s 20 posts or some other 

posts. What has been done to make sure it’s institutionalized? 

Mrs. CLINTON. Well, that was one of the changes that I instituted 

before I left, and I’m confident that Secretary Kerry and his counterpart, Secretary Carter, at the Defense Department, are continuing that because I think it was very useful. Certainly it was 

useful for our security professionals and our diplomats to be 

partnered in that way with the Defense Department. 

You know, historically the only presence at some of our facilities 

has been Marines. And as you know well, Marines were there not 

for the purpose of personnel protection; they were there to destroy 

classified material and equipment. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
289 

And so part of the challenge that we have faced in some of these 

hot-spot, dangerous areas is, how will we get more of a presence? 

And after Benghazi, we were able to get Marines deployed to Tripoli. So this is a constant effort between the State Department and 

the Defense Department, but it’s my strong belief that the ISAT 

process has been and should be institutionalized, and we just keep 

learning from it. 

Ms. DUCKWORTH. I’d like to touch on the quadrennial reviews. 

Again, coming from Armed Services, even as a young platoon leader out in, you know, a platoon, we got and read the Defense Quadrennial Review, which is a review that happens on a periodic basis 

that gives the individual soldier an idea of what the Defense Department is trying to do. And I understand you initiated something 

similar—— 

Mrs. CLINTON. Right. 

Ms. DUCKWORTH [continuing]. In the State Department. And this 

goes to—there has been discussion already about the culture at the 

State Department, especially when it comes to security. I find that 

the Department of Defense Quadrennial Review is really good at 

instilling culture throughout the Department. 

Can you talk a little bit about how and why you decided to do 

the review for the State Department? Was it useful? Is it useful? 

Is it getting out there? Is it a waste of time, and we shouldn’t be 

wasting money on it, and we should be doing something else? 

Mrs. CLINTON. Well, I hope it’s not the latter. I learned about the 

Quadrennial Defense Review serving on the Armed Services Committee in the Senate during my time there. 

I agree with you completely, Congresswoman. It’s a very successful roadmap as to where we should be going, and I’m impressed 

that as a platoon leader, it was something that you took into account. 

So when I came to the State Department, there had never been 

anything like this done; there was no roadmap. And the State Department and USAID would come up and fight for the money that 

they could get out of Congress, no matter who was in charge of the 

Congress, every single year. It’s 1 percent of the entire budget, and 

it was very difficult to explain effectively what it is we were trying 

to achieve, so I did institute the first ever Quadrennial Diplomacy 

and Development Review. 

And one of the key questions that we were addressing is, what 

is this balance between risk and reward when it comes to our diplomats and our development professionals? Because the first thing 

I heard when I got to the State Department was a litany of complaints from a lot of our most experienced diplomats that they were 

being hamstrung, that the security requirements were so intense 

that they were basically unable to do their jobs. And, of course, 

then from the security professionals, who were all part of this, 

what we call the QDDR, they were saying: We don’t want you to 

go beyond the fence. We can’t protect you in all of these dangerous 

circumstances. 

How you balance that—and it is a constant balancing of risk and 

reward in terms of what we hope our diplomats and development 

professionals can do. So it’s been done twice now. Secretary Kerry 

in his tenure has done the second QDDR. And I hope it becomes 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
290 

as important and as much of a roadmap as the QDR has for our 

Defense Department and our military services. 

Ms. DUCKWORTH. Thank you. 

I’m out of time, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman GOWDY. I thank the gentlelady from Illinois. 

The chair would now recognize the gentlelady from Alabama, 

Mrs. Roby. 

Mrs. ROBY. Good morning. 

Mrs. CLINTON. Good morning. 

Mrs. ROBY. Secretary Clinton, my colleagues have focused on 

your relationship with the Ambassador, Chris Stevens, and why 

you sent him into Benghazi in 2011 as part of your broader Libya 

initiative, but it’s not so clear from everything that we’ve reviewed 

that you had a vision in Benghazi going forward into 2012 and beyond. It appears that there was confusion and uncertainty within 

your own Department about Libya. And, quite frankly, Secretary 

Clinton, it appears that you were a large cause of that uncertainty. 

And we’ve seen all the day-to-day updates and concern early in 

2011. And I heard what you said to my colleague, Mrs. Brooks. And 

I’ll get to that in a minute. But showing that Libya and, for that 

matter, Benghazi, belonged to you in 2011, it was yours, so to 

speak. And from your own records that we have, we saw a drop in 

your interest in Libya and Benghazi in 2012. 

Not only do the records show your drop in interest in Benghazi, 

it was even noticed by your own staff. I want to point this out to— 

I say this because I want to point you to an email in early February 2012 between two staffers at your Libya desk that says you 

didn’t know whether we still even had a presence in Benghazi. 

Let’s not use my words. Let’s use theirs. This can be found at tab 

31. The email says—and it’s dated February 9, 2012. One writes 

to the other about an encounter that she had with you, quote: 

‘‘Also, the Secretary asked last week if we still have a presence in 

Benghazi. I think she would be upset to hear that yes, we do, but 

because we don’t have enough security, they are on lockdown,’’ end 

quote. 

And I say that this is very troubling to me because it raises several issues that I’d like to ask you about. I’m struck by the first 

part, ‘‘The Secretary asked last week if we still have a presence in 

Benghazi.’’ Now, you pointed out to Mrs. Brooks in her last line of 

questioning based upon the email stacks here that you engaged in 

a lot of conversations and briefings, so I’m assuming that this conversation with this member of your staff took place in one of those 

briefings, but then she sent this email asking about this. 

So how can this be that two of your staffers are emailing about 

whether or not you even knew that we had a presence in Benghazi 

in 2012, with all your interest in Libya in 2011, including your trip 

in October of 2011, and that months later, we come to find out that 

you didn’t even know if we had a presence there? 

Mrs. CLINTON. Well, I can’t comment on what has been reported. 

Of course, I knew we had a presence in Benghazi. I knew that we 

were evaluating what that presence should be, how long it should 

continue, and I knew exactly what we were doing in Libya. 

And I think it’s important since you—you have some very legitimate questions about what we were doing. You know, the United 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
291 

States played a major role in the first election that the Libyan people had in 51 years. It was a successful election by every count, and 

they voted for moderates. They voted for the kind of people they 

wanted to govern them. We had a very successful effort that the 

United States supported, getting rid of Qadhafi’s remaining chemical weapons, which we led and supported the United Nations and 

others in being able to do. 

We were combating the proliferation of weapons. That’s one of 

the reasons why there was a CIA presence in Benghazi because we 

were trying to figure out how to get those weapons out of the 

wrong hands and get them collected in a way and destroyed, and, 

in fact, we began reducing those heavy weapons stocks. 

We were, you know, working on providing transition assistance 

to the Libyans. I met with the Libyans. I telephoned with the Libyans. I saw the Libyans all during this period. And it was hard because a lot of them knew what they wanted, but they didn’t know 

how to get from where they were to that goal. And we did an enormous amount of work. My two deputies, Tom Nides and Bill Burns, 

went to Libya. Other officials in the State Department went to 

Libya. So there was a constant continuing effort that I led to try 

to see what we could do to help. 

Now, one of the problems we faced is that the Libyans did not 

really feel that they could welcome a peacekeeping mission, they 

couldn’t welcome foreign troops to their soil. That made it really 

difficult. And it—— 

Mrs. ROBY. Secretary—— 

Mrs. CLINTON [continuing]. Didn’t have to be American troops. It 

could have been troops from anywhere in the world under a U.N. 

mandate that might have helped them begin to secure their country. 

Mrs. ROBY. Secretary Clinton, if I may, I hear what you’re saying, but this email says something very, very different. 

Mrs. CLINTON. Well, I can’t speak to that. I can just tell you 

what I was doing, and I—— 

Mrs. ROBY. Sure. But these—— 

Mrs. CLINTON [continuing]. Was doing a lot. 

Mrs. ROBY. This was your staff, and I—— 

Mrs. CLINTON. Well, who—— 

Mrs. ROBY. How can they wonder—— 

Mrs. CLINTON. What were the—— 

Mrs. ROBY [continuing]. If they had this conversation with you, 

why they would make it up, but I wanted to move on. 

This email, you know, makes me wonder about the vision for 

Benghazi because they’re asking if you—they’re saying that you 

asked if we still had a presence, but if you—you know, we look at 

the second part of the email, ‘‘and I think she would be upset to 

hear yes, we do’’—— 

Mrs. CLINTON. I—— 

Mrs. ROBY. This—— 

Mrs. CLINTON. You know, Congresswoman, I’m sorry. I have no— 

no recollection of or no knowledge of—of course. 

Mrs. ROBY. Well, please turn to tab 31—— 

Mrs. CLINTON. Well, I—— 

Mrs. ROBY [continuing]. Because it’s right there. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
292 

Mrs. CLINTON. I trust that you have read it, but I also tell you 

that we had a presence in Benghazi. We had members of the administration and Congress visiting Benghazi, so, of course, I knew 

we had a presence in Benghazi. I can’t speak to what someone either heard or misheard, but I think what’s important, and I understand the underlying point of your question, is, what were we doing 

about—— 

Mrs. ROBY. Right. And I’ve heard—— 

Mrs. CLINTON [continuing]. Libya after Qadhafi fell, and that’s 

what I’m trying to explain to you about—— 

Mrs. ROBY. Yes, ma’am. 

Mrs. CLINTON [continuing]. What we were doing. 

Mrs. ROBY. I want to get to the second part of the email that suggests that we were in lockdown, that you would have been upset 

to know yes. I’ve heard the first part of your answer. But that we 

were in lockdown, and you’ve said on numerous occasions, including in your opening statement on point number one, you know, 

America must lead and we must represent in dangerous places, 

‘‘They can’t do their jobs for us in bunkers.’’ And essentially what 

we know is that there weren’t the required number of security on 

the ground in order for an individual to even move about the country to provide you with what you have reiterated on numerous occasions as being very important at that time, which is political reporting. 

Mrs. CLINTON. Well, could you tell me who is—who are the 

names on this email that you’re talking about? 

Mrs. ROBY. Sure, I can. Turn to tab 31. You have a book in front 

of you. It is Alyce Abdalla and—I’m going to pronounce it wrong— 

Evyenia Sidereas? Is that correct? 

Mrs. CLINTON. They were not on my staff. I’m not in any way, 

you know, contradicting what they think they heard or what they 

heard somebody say, but the people that I—— 

Mrs. ROBY. Can you tell me who they were if they were not on 

your staff? 

Mrs. CLINTON. They were not on my—they were—they—they 

were in the State Department along with thousands of other people. They were not part of the Secretary’s staff. 

But I get what you’re saying, Congresswoman, and I want to 

focus on this because I think it’s a fair and important question. The 

facility in Benghazi was a temporary facility. There had been no 

decision made as to whether or not it would be permanent. It was 

not even a consulate. You know, our Embassy was in Tripoli. Obviously, much of the work that we were doing was going through the 

Embassy. There was a very vigorous discussion on the part of people who were responsible for making a recommendation about 

Benghazi as to what form of consulate, what form of facility it 

should be. Chris Stevens believed that it should be a formal consulate, but that was something that had to be worked out, and 

there had not yet been a decision at the time that the attack took 

place. So it was not a permanent facility, and, you know, there 

were a number of questions that people were asking about whether 

it could or should be. 

Mrs. ROBY. I want to drill down on the security issue, but I also 

want to say it’s frustrating for us here on this panel asking these 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
293 

questions to hear you in your opening statement talk about the responsibility you took for all 70,000-plus employees, yet I read you 

an email that is a conversation between two of those employees, 

and it seems as though you’re just kind of brushing it off as—— 

Mrs. CLINTON. No. I—— 

Mrs. ROBY [continuing]. Not having any knowledge. 

Mrs. CLINTON. I’m just saying I have no recollection of it, and it 

doesn’t correspond with the facts of what we were doing on a regular basis. 

Mrs. ROBY. Well, we talked for just a minute about the security. 

I’ve got a few seconds left. In 2011, during the revolution, then 

Envoy Stevens had ten agents with him on the ground in Benghazi. 

And then we know, in 2012, where the security situation had deteriorated even further, there were only three agents assigned to 

Benghazi. Again, can’t even move anybody off of the facility to do 

the necessary political reporting. 

And my question is, you know, why did you not acknowledge, because of your interest in 2011, the importance of having those security officers there to do what was so important to you, which was 

the political reporting? Then in 2011, ten; and when the Ambassador was there, three; and he brought two of his own the night 

of the attack, which would meet the requisite five; but there was 

really only three there at any given time. So if you could address 

that again. I’m a little short on time. 

Mrs. CLINTON. Well, he did have five with him on September 11, 

and he—— 

Mrs. ROBY. Well, he brought two, right? He brought two—— 

Mrs. CLINTON. Well—— 

Mrs. ROBY [continuing]. With him. There were three there—— 

Mrs. CLINTON. Right. But—— 

Mrs. ROBY [continuing]. And there was supposed to be five there. 

Mrs. CLINTON. But the point was they were personal security, so 

they were there to secure him. So, yes, he did bring two, and when 

he got there, he had five. 

Mrs. ROBY. Can you address the discrepancy? 

Mrs. CLINTON. The day before, on September 10, he went into 

Benghazi, he went to a luncheon with leading civic leaders, business leaders in Benghazi. So he felt very comfortable. It was his 

decision. Ambassadors do not have to seek permission from the 

State Department to travel around the country that they are assigned to. He decided to go to Benghazi. By taking two security officers with him and having three there, he had the requisite five 

that had been the subject of discussion between the Embassy and 

the State Department security professionals. 

I’m not going to in any way suggest that he or the Embassy got 

everything they requested. We know that they didn’t, from the Accountability Review Board, from investigations that were done by 

the Congress. We know that there were a lot of discussions about 

what was needed, particularly in Benghazi, and that the day that 

he died, he had five security officers. 

A lot of security professionals who have reviewed this matter, 

even those who are critical that the State Department did not do 

enough, have said that the kind of attack that took place would 

have been very difficult to repel. That’s what we have to learn 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
294 

from, Congresswoman. You know, there are many lessons going 

back to Beirut, going back to Tehran and the takeover of our embassy, and going all the way through these years. And sometimes 

we learn lessons and we actually act and we do the best we can, 

and there’s a perfect terrible example of that with respect to what 

happened in Benghazi. 

Mrs. ROBY. Certainly. My time has expired. And we’ll certainly 

never know what would have—what the outcome would have been 

if there had been more agents that night. 

I yield back. 

Mrs. CLINTON. Well, that’s not what the professionals, that’s not 

what the experts in security have concluded. If you read the Accountability Review Board—— 

Mrs. ROBY. I have read it, Secretary Clinton, and it says that security was grossly inadequate. 

Mrs. CLINTON. Well, it said that there were deficiencies within 

two bureaus in the State Department, which we have moved to correct, and it also pointed out that the Diplomatic Security officers 

who were there acted heroically. There was not one single question 

about what they did. And they were overrun, and it was unfortunate that the agreement we had with the CIA annex, and when 

those brave men showed up, that it was also not enough. 

Mrs. ROBY. Certainly. And we’ll discuss this more. 

I have to yield back. 

Chairman GOWDY. The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

The chair will now recognize the gentleman from Washington. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you, Madam Secretary, for being here. 

Just to clarify, you knew we had a presence? 

Mrs. CLINTON. Of course, I knew. I knew, Congressman, of 

course. 

Mr. SMITH. And then going back to an earlier question, you were 

also aware of those two attacks on our compounds, even though 

you didn’t email about it? 

Mrs. CLINTON. Yes, I was aware. 

Mr. SMITH. And that, I think, you know, sort of points out, I 

mean, after 17 months and $4.7 million, as the ranking member 

pointed out in his opening statements, and then as we’ve seen 

today, this committee is simply not doing its job. And I don’t really 

think it should have been formed in the first place, but what we’ve 

heard here is, well, first of all, an obsession with email. 

The idea that two fairly junior level staffers might not have gotten something wrong in what they heard or the information in an 

email might in fact not be accurate are certainly not things that 

should be news to anybody, but it is the obsession with the emails 

that takes us off of what should have been the task of this committee. 

I also find it interesting that Mrs. Roby’s final comments were 

to quote the ARB report. 

Mrs. CLINTON. Right. 

Mr. SMITH. And, yes, the ARB report, I think, was very good. I 

think we absolutely had to have it. And I think it was appropriate 

for the committees and Congress to do the investigations that they 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
295 

did, but all of that begs the question as to why we’ve spent the $4.7 

million that we have spent on this. 

And even in the chairman’s opening remarks, it was primarily a 

defense of the committee’s existence, not any new information, not 

here’s what we in those 17 months and $4.7 million have figured 

out that is new and different. There’s nothing. In fact, we’ve heard 

nothing, even in today’s hearing, not a single solitary thing that 

hasn’t already been discussed repeatedly. So we’ve learned absolutely nothing. 

And, yes, we’ve uncovered a trove of new information. In this 

age, there—I don’t think there’s ever an end to the emails. We 

could probably go on for another two years, and we’d find more. 

But the question is, have we found anything substantively that 

tells us something different about what happened in Benghazi? 

And the answer to that question is no. 

And, look, I didn’t think this committee should have been formed 

in the first place, but if it was going to be formed, the least we 

could do would be to actually focus on the four brave Americans 

who were killed, why they were killed, and focus on Benghazi. And 

we have not. 

I mean, Mr. Roskam’s questions I found to be the most interesting. Basically, I don’t know, it was like he was running for 

President. He wanted to debate you on overall Libya policy as to 

why we got in there in the first place. And that’s debatable, and 

I think you will argue that quite well. But that’s not about the attack on Benghazi. That’s not about what we could have done in 

Benghazi to better protect them. 

So, again, I think we’ve seen that this committee is focused on 

you. And I’m, you know, the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee. I don’t see the Department of Defense here. I don’t 

see the CIA here. There were many, many other agencies involved 

in this, and yet yours has been the one that they have obsessively 

focused on. And I, I think that’s a shame for a whole lot of reasons, 

but for one thing, this committee, as it’s been in the news the last 

several weeks, has been yet one more step in denigrating this institution. And I happen to think this institution needs more support, 

not less, so I wish we would stop doing that. And you mentioned 

Beirut, and that was the first thought that occurred to me when 

this happened, was a Democratic Congress at the time did a fair 

and quick investigation of what was an unspeakable tragedy, two 

separate suicide bombings 4 months apart. And there was clearly 

inadequate security, but the focus there was not on partisanship, 

not on embarrassing the Reagan administration, but on actually 

figuring out what happened and how we can better protect Americans. 

Now, I want to talk just—and ask questions about what I think 

is the central issue, and that is, how do we have that presence in 

the world that you described in what is an increasingly dangerous 

world? Because as I’ve traveled to Pakistan and Afghanistan and 

Yemen and other places, I am consistently amazed by the willingness of our diplomatic corps to put their lives at risk. And I wonder, how do you balance that very difficult decision because, frankly, what I’ve heard more often from that diplomatic corps is that 

they chafe at the restrictions. I mean, I remember vividly being in 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
296 

Peshawar, which is, you know—I mean, I don’t like to ride from the 

airport to the Embassy, which was 10 minutes, and we were there 

for, I don’t know, a few hours and then out. You know, the State 

Department personnel, they lived there and went out amongst the 

community. 

How do you try and strike that balance of, you know, being 

present and at the same time meeting the security obligations? 

And then, most importantly, who drives that decision because it 

seems to me in most instances, it is driven by the diplomatic corps 

there? If they take risks, it’s because they have decided to do it. 

They’re there. They know the security situation certainly better 

than the Secretary and better than most everybody else. But what 

is the proper way to strike that balance going forward to protect 

our personnel and still fulfill their mission? 

Mrs. CLINTON. Congressman, I think that is the most important 

question, and I would certainly welcome congressional discussion 

and debate about this because it’s what we tried to do, going back 

to Congresswoman Duckworth’s question, what we tried to begin to 

do in the Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review, the 

first one that was ever done, because that’s exactly what we were 

facing. 

You know, we have had diplomats and development professionals 

in war zones now for a number of years. We’ve had them in places 

that are incredibly unstable and dangerous because of ongoing conflicts. It is, I think, the bias of the diplomacy corps that they be 

there because that’s what they signed up for, and they know that 

if America is not represented, then we leave a vacuum, and we lose 

our eyes and our ears about what people are thinking and doing. 

It is certainly the hardest part of the job in many of our agencies 

and departments today, and it was for me in the State Department. 

That’s why I relied on the security professionals because by the 

time I got there in 2009, the Diplomatic Security professionals had 

been taking care of American diplomats in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in 

Pakistan, for years, and they had learned a lot of lessons, and they 

were forced to make tough decisions all the time. 

You mentioned Peshawar, one of clearly the high-threat posts 

that the United States maintains a presence in, but when you 

think that since 2001, we’ve had 100 of our facilities attacked. If 

we were to shut them all down, if we were to pull out from all of 

them, we would be blinding ourselves. So it’s a constant balancing 

act: what are the risks, and what are the rewards for opening, 

maintaining, and/or closing a site? I don’t know that there’s any 

hard and fast rule that we can adopt. We just have to get better 

at making that assessment, Congressman. 

And your question really goes to the heart of it. When you were 

a Member of Congress in Peshawar, you were guarded by our Diplomatic Security professionals. They had to assess: Was it safe 

enough for a member of Congress to come? How do we get him 

from the airport to the Embassy? It won’t surprise you to hear 

we’ve had attacks there, as in so many other places around the 

world. And that is a heavy responsibility. And the Diplomatic Security professionals get it right 999 times out of 1,000. And it’s deeply 

distressing to them when anything goes wrong. We have lost nonAmericans with some of these attacks on facilities. We’ve lost our 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
297 

locally employed staff. They never want to see any successful attack, so they have to be—they have to be right 100 percent of the 

time. The terrorists only have to be right once. And, you know, 

that’s why this is really at the core of what I tried to do before even 

I got the Accountability Review Board, going back to the QDDR to 

come up with a better way of trying to make those assessments. 

Mr. SMITH. Madam Secretary, if I may, just two final points. I 

mean, so the bottom line is Benghazi on 9/11/2012 was not the only 

dangerous place in the world where our security personnel 

were—— 

Mrs. CLINTON. Right. 

Mr. SMITH [continuing]. And where these difficult decisions had 

to be made. 

Mrs. CLINTON. Right. 

Mr. SMITH. And the other point I want to make before my time 

expires, now, this was in 2012, so we were only a couple years into 

this, but Secretary of Defense Ash Carter just I think yesterday 

wrote an editorial in the Wall Street Journal about the impact of 

five years of budget uncertainty on the DOD’s ability to function. 

I mean, for five years, we have gone through CR’s, threatened government shutdowns, one actual government shutdown, and constant budget uncertainty. 

Now, my area is the Department of Defense. I know how it’s impacted them. They basically from one week to the next barely know 

what they can spend money on. Now, one of the criticisms is there 

should have been more security, but if you don’t have a budget, if 

you don’t have an appropriations bill, how does that complicate 

your job as Secretary in trying to figure out what money you can 

spend? 

Mrs. CLINTON. Well, it makes it very difficult, Congressman. And 

this is a subject that we talked about all the time. How do you 

plan? How do you know—you know, you have so many Diplomatic 

Security officers in so many dangerous places. How do you know 

what you’re going to have to be able to deploy? And where are you 

going to have to make the choices? That’s why the prioritization, 

which shouldn’t have to be, in my view, the responsibility of the officials in the State Department or the Defense Department to try 

to guess what makes the most sense. We should have a much more 

orderly process for our budget. 

And I will say, again, as Secretary of State, the kind of dysfunction and failure to make decisions that we have been living with 

in our government hurts us. It hurts us in the obvious ways, like 

where you’re going to deploy forces if you’re in DOD, or where 

we’re going to send security if you’re in the Department of State, 

but it hurts us, as the great country that we are, being viewed from 

abroad as unable to handle our own business, and so it has a lot 

of consequences. And it’s something that I wish that we could get 

over, and have our arguments about policy, have our arguments 

about substance, but get back to regular order where we have the 

greatest nation in the world with a budget that then they can plan 

against as opposed to the uncertainty that has stalked us now for 

so long. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Madam Secretary. So the bottom line is, 

Congress needs to do its job. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
298 

Mrs. CLINTON. Right. 

Mr. SMITH. That would be helpful. 

Mrs. CLINTON. I agree with that. 

Chairman GOWDY. The gentleman yields back. And I’ll be happy 

to get a copy of my opening statement for the gentleman from 

Washington so he can refresh his recollection on all of the things 

our committee found that your previous committee missed. 

And with that, I’ll go to the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Westmoreland. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Thank you. 

Madam Secretary, I talk a little slower than everybody else, 

so—— 

Mrs. CLINTON. I lived in Arkansas a long time. I don’t need an 

interpreter, Congressman. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Yeah, I know that. So some of the questions 

I’m asking, you can just get us a yes-or-no answer—— 

Mrs. CLINTON. Uh-huh. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND [continuing]. That would be great, but I do 

want you to give us a full answer. 

But Mr. Smith from Washington mentioned that there was no 

new facts brought out in some of these interviews, and I wanted 

to say that I think he was at one interview for one hour. I have 

been at a bunch of those, and there is a lot of new facts that has 

come out. 

One of the things that he said, it doesn’t—that you knew about 

these two incidents that have been mentioned previously. It is not 

a matter if you knew about them. It’s a matter of what you did 

about them. And to us, the answer to that is nothing. 

Now, you say you were briefed by the CIA every morning that 

you were in Washington. Is that correct? 

Mrs. CLINTON. That’s correct. 

Mr. Westmoreland. Did they ever mention to you—Assistant Acting Director Morell wrote in his book that there were ‘‘scores of intelligence pieces describing in detail how the situation in Libya was 

becoming more and more dangerous.’’ 

Did you ever read any of these pieces? 

Mrs. CLINTON. Yes. As I previously stated, we were certainly 

aware that the situation across Libya was becoming more dangerous and that there were particular concerns about eastern 

Libya. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Did you read the piece that was ‘‘Libya: Al 

Qaeda Establishing Sanctuary’’? 

Mrs. CLINTON. I’m aware that that was certainly among the information provided to me. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. There was another particular piece that 

was talked about after the IED attack that AFRICOM wrote. ‘‘Al 

Qaeda Expands in Libya.’’ Were you familiar with that? 

Mrs. CLINTON. I can’t speak to specific pieces, Congressman, but 

I was well aware of the concerns we all had about the setting up 

of jihadist training camps and other activities in Libya, particularly 

in eastern Libya. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. You were briefed, and I think the CIA between January and September of 2012 had over 4,500 pages of intelligence. Were you aware of how many pages of intelligence? And 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
299 

I know you had a specific division, I guess, of the State Department 

under you that was called Intelligence and Research. 

Mrs. CLINTON. Uh-huh. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Did they keep you up to speed on all of 

these 400 cables or different things that they were getting? Did 

they keep you up to speed on that, that you were aware of them? 

Mrs. CLINTON. Congressman, I can’t speak to specific reports, but 

I can certainly agree with you that I was briefed and aware of the 

increasingly dangerous upsurge in militant activity in Libya. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. And so what did you do to make sure that 

our men and women over there were protected, knowing how much 

the threat had grown, especially in Benghazi, because a lot of people say that really in the summer of 2012, the security in Benghazi 

was worse than it was during the revolution? 

Mrs. CLINTON. Well, Congressman, with respect to not only the 

specific incidents that you referenced earlier, but the overall concerns about Benghazi, I think I have stated previously there was 

never any recommendation by anyone, the intelligence community, 

the Defense Department, the State Department officials responsible for Libya, to leave Benghazi, even after the two incidents that 

you mentioned, because in part, as I responded to Congressman 

Smith, we had so many attacks on facilities that, as I said, went 

back to 2001, that certainly also happened in other parts of the 

world while I was there. Each was evaluated, and there was not 

a recommendation. 

Furthermore, there was not even on the morning of September 

11, while Chris Stevens and Sean Smith were at the compound, 

Chris had spoken with intelligence experts, there was no credible, 

actionable threat known to our intelligence community—— 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Yes, ma’am. 

Mrs. CLINTON [continuing]. Against our compound. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Reclaiming my time. You said that the Ambassador Cretz was pulled out of Tripoli because of threats on his 

life. 

Mrs. CLINTON. There were threats from people associated with 

Qadhafi after the publication of cables he had written that were 

made public by WikiLeaks. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. And you say you were aware of the two attacks at the mission facility in Benghazi? 

Mrs. CLINTON. Uh-huh. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Morell in his book states that there 

was 20 attacks on that facility. Are you familiar with the other 18? 

Mrs. CLINTON. There were two that we thought rose to the level 

of being serious. And—— 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Were you familiar with the other 18? 

Mrs. CLINTON. I’m not aware of 18 others. And I would point out, 

and I’m sure that former Deputy Director Morell made this point 

when he was testifying, the CIA stayed in Libya. The CIA had a 

much bigger presence than the State Department despite the overall decline in stability. Some might argue, actually because of the 

overall decline in stability, it was thought to be even more important for the CIA to stay there. And they also did not believe that 

their facility would be the subject of a deadly attack either, because 

I think sometimes—— 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
300 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Ma’am—— 

Mrs. CLINTON [continuing]. Sometimes the discussion gets pulled 

together when really we had Chris and Sean dying at the State Department compound, which we are discussing, and we had our 

other two deaths of Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty at the CIA 

Annex. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Reclaiming my time for just a minute, and 

I do appreciate that, but if you talked to the CIA contractors that 

were at the Annex and you asked them how they were armed and 

equipped, and then if you would, or could talk to the Diplomatic 

Security agents that were at the facility, I think you will see that 

there was a big, big difference in the equipment that they had to 

protect themselves. 

But you knew of the two what you call major incidents, but you 

don’t recollect the other 18 that Mr. Morell says happened. How 

many instances would it have taken you to say, ‘‘Hey, we need to 

look at the security over there’’? Would it have been three major 

instances; 30 instances; 40 instances; 50 instances? How many instances would you have been made aware of that would have made 

you say, ‘‘Hey, I don’t care what anybody else says. We are going 

to protect our people. Chris Stevens is a good friend of mine. We 

are going to look after him.’’ How many would it have taken? 

Mrs. CLINTON. Well, Congressman, of course, I made it abundantly clear that we had to do everything we could to protect our 

people. What I did not and do not believe any Secretary should do 

was to substitute my judgment from thousands of miles away for 

the judgment of the security professionals who made the decisions 

about what kind of security would be provided. And—— 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Ma’am—— 

Mrs. CLINTON. I know that that sounds somewhat hard to understand, but, you know, we have a process and the experts who I 

have the greatest confidence in and who had been through so many 

difficult positions because practically all of them had rotated 

through Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Yemen, other places, they 

were the ones making the assessment. No one ever came to me and 

said, ‘‘We should shut down our compound in Benghazi.’’ 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Ma’am, I’m not saying shut it down. I’m 

saying protect it. 

Mrs. CLINTON. Well—— 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. I’m not saying shut it down. I’m just saying 

protect it. 

Mrs. CLINTON. Right. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. And when you say security professionals, 

I’m not trying to be disparaging with anybody, but I don’t know 

who those folks were, but it’s just my little—— 

Mrs. CLINTON. Well, they were people who risked their lives to 

try to save—— 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. It’s my little personal opinion they weren’t 

being professional when it came to protecting people. 

But let me say this. You said that the mission that you gave Ambassador Stevens was to go in and to investigate the situation. 

Mrs. CLINTON. Uh-huh. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Now, if you are going to investigate a situation, it would seem to me like you would have to get out into the 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
301 

country to investigate that. And I don’t know if you’re aware of it 

or not, but there were not even enough Diplomatic Security for him 

to leave the compound without asking the CIA operatives to assist 

them. Were you aware of that? 

Mrs. CLINTON. Well, we had an agreement with the CIA to help 

supplement security and to come to the aid. It was a—it was a mutual agreement. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Was that a written agreement? 

Mrs. CLINTON. No, it was not a written agreement. But we are 

posted with the CIA in many places in the country—I mean, in the 

world—and it’s important to have a good working relationship, and 

we did. And, unfortunately, despite all of the weapons and despite 

the fortification, two CIA contractors died at the CIA Annex that 

night. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Just to follow up on one thing about Ambassador Stevens. You got a lot of emails from Sidney Blumenthal, 

and you say that Mr. Blumenthal was a friend of yours. 

Mrs. CLINTON. Uh-huh. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. And he had your personal email address? 

Mrs. CLINTON. Uh-huh. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. You say Chris Stevens was a friend of 

yours. He asked numerous times for extra protection. Now, if I had 

been Mr. Stevens, and I think anybody out there, anybody watching this would agree, if I had been Mr. Stevens and I had a relationship with you and I had requested 20 or more times for additional security to protect not only my life, but the people that were 

there with me, I would have gotten in touch with you some way. 

I would have let you know that I was in danger and that the situation had deteriorated to a point I needed you to do something. 

Did he have your personal email? 

Mrs. CLINTON. Congressman, I do not believe that he had my 

personal email. He had the email and he had the direct line to everybody that he’d worked with for years. He had been posted—— 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. But not yours. 

Mrs. CLINTON [continuing]. With officials in the State Department. They had gone through difficult, challenging, dangerous assignments together. He was in constant contact with people. 

Yes, he and the people working for him asked for more security. 

Some of those requests were approved, others were not. We are obviously looking to learn what more we could do because it was not 

only about Benghazi, it was also about the Embassy in Tripoli. 

And I think it’s fair to say that, you know, Chris asked for what 

he and his people requested because he thought that it would be 

helpful, but he never said to anybody in the State Department, 

‘‘You know what? We just can’t keep doing this. We just can’t—we 

can’t stay there.’’ 

He was in constant contact with, you know, people on my staff, 

other officials in the State Department. And, you know, I did have 

an opportunity to talk with him and about the substance of the policy. But with respect to security, he took those requests where they 

belonged. He took them to the security professionals. 

And I have to add, Congressman, the Diplomatic Security professionals are among the best in the world. I would put them up 

against anybody. And I just cannot allow any comment to be in the 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
302 

record in any way criticizing or disparaging them. They have kept 

Americans safe in two wars and in a lot of other really terrible situations over the last many years. I trusted them with my life. You 

trust them with yours when you are on codels. They deserve better, 

and they deserve all the support that the Congress can give them 

because they’re doing a really hard job very well. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Well, ma’am, all I can say is that they 

missed something here and we lost four Americans. 

Chairman GOWDY. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The chair will now recognize the gentleman from Kansas, Mr. 

Pompeo. 

Mr. POMPEO. Madam Secretary, you referred to the QDDR a couple times as being important to Diplomatic Security. Is that correct? 

Mrs. CLINTON. It provoked a discussion, Congressman, about balancing of risk. 

Mr. POMPEO. Madam Secretary, I have had a chance to read 

that. I wanted to only read the executive summary that ran 25 

pages, but it didn’t have a word about Diplomatic Security in those 

entire 25 pages of the executive summary, not one word, Madam 

Secretary. And then I read the remaining pages, amounted to 270- 

plus. Do you know how many pages of those 270 had to do with 

Diplomatic Security? 

Mrs. CLINTON. It was about the balancing of risk and reward, 

which was not only—— 

Mr. POMPEO. Madam Secretary—— 

Mrs. CLINTON [continuing]. Not only about Diplomatic Security 

specifically, but about the larger question of our mission around 

the world. 

Mr. POMPEO. Madam Secretary, there was no balance. There was 

two pages out of 270 pages. You talked about a lot of things in 

there. You talked about a lot of improvements. It didn’t have anything to do with Diplomatic Security in any material way in that 

report. 

You talked about being disappointed too. I’ve heard you use that 

several times. You were disappointed. You read the ARB. Why 

didn’t you fire someone? In Kansas, Madam Secretary, I get asked 

constantly, why has no one been held accountable? How come not 

a single person lost a single paycheck connected to the fact that we 

had the first ambassador killed since 1979? How come no one has 

been held accountable to date? 

Mrs. CLINTON. Well, Congressman, the Accountability Review 

Board pointed out several people working in the State Department 

who they thought had not carried out their responsibilities adequately, but they said that they could not find a breach of duty. 

Mr. POMPEO. Yes, ma’am—— 

Mrs. CLINTON. And the personnel rules and the laws that govern 

those decisions were followed very carefully. 

Mr. POMPEO. Yes, ma’am. I’m not asking what the ARB did. I’m 

asking what you did. 

Mrs. CLINTON. I followed the law, Congressman. That was my— 

that was my responsibility. 

Mr. POMPEO. Madam Secretary, you’re telling me that you had 

no authority to take anyone’s paycheck, to cause anyone to be fired. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
303 

You’re telling me you were legally prohibited from doing that. Is 

that your position here this morning? 

Mrs. CLINTON. It is my position that in the absence of finding 

dereliction or breach of duty there could not be immediate action 

taken, but there was a process that was immediately instituted and 

which led to decisions being made. 

Mr. POMPEO. Yes, ma’am. The decision was to put these at full 

back pay and keep them on as employees. That was the decision 

that was made as a result of the processes that you put in place. 

I will tell you, the folks in Kansas don’t think that is accountability. 

I want to do some math with you. Can I get the first chart, 

please? Do you know how many security requests there were in the 

first quarter of 2012? 

Mrs. CLINTON. For everyone or for Benghazi? 

Mr. POMPEO. I’m sorry. Yes, ma’am. Related to Benghazi and 

Libya. Do you know how many there were? 

Mrs. CLINTON. No, I do not know. 

Mr. POMPEO. Ma’am, there were just over a hundred plus. In the 

second quarter, do you know how many there were? 

Mrs. CLINTON. No, I do not. 

Mr. POMPEO. Ma’am, there were 172-ish, might have been 171 or 

173. 

How many were there in July and August and then in that week 

and few days before the attacks? Do you know? 

Mrs. CLINTON. There were a number of them. I know that. 

Mr. POMPEO. Yes, ma’am, 83 by our count. 

Mrs. CLINTON. Uh-huh. 

Mr. POMPEO. That’s over 600 requests. You’ve testified here this 

morning that you had none of those reach your desk. Is that correct 

also? 

Mrs. CLINTON. That’s correct. 

Mr. POMPEO. Madam Secretary, Mr. Blumenthal wrote you 150 

emails. It appears from the testimony—or the materials that we 

have read that all of those reached your desk. Can you tell us why 

security requests from your professionals, the men that you just 

testified, and with which I agree are incredibly professional, incredibly capable people, trained in the art of keeping us all safe, none 

of those made it to you, but a man who was a friend of yours, who 

had never been to Libya, didn’t know much about it, at least that’s 

his testimony, didn’t know much about it, every one of those reports that he sent on to you that had to do with situations on the 

ground in Libya, those made it to your desk, you asked for more 

of them, you read them, you corresponded with him, and yet the 

folks that worked for you didn’t have the same courtesy? 

Mrs. CLINTON. Well, Congressman, as you are aware, he’s a 

friend of mine. He sent me information he thought might be of interest. Some of it was. Some of it wasn’t. Some of it I forwarded 

to be followed up on. The professionals and experts who reviewed 

it found some of it useful, some of it not. 

Mr. POMPEO. Madam Secretary—— 

Mrs. CLINTON. He held no official position in the government and 

he was not at all my adviser on Libya. He was a friend who sent 

me information that he thought might be in some way helpful. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
304 

Mr. POMPEO. Madam Secretary, I have lots of friends that send 

me things. I have never had somebody send me a couple of pieces 

of intelligence with the level of detail that Mr. Blumenthal sent me 

every week. That’s a special friend. 

Mrs. CLINTON. Well, it was information that had been shared 

with him that he forwarded on. And as someone who got the vast 

majority of the information that I acted on from official channels, 

I read a lot of articles that brought new ideas to my attention. And 

occasionally people, including him and others, would give me ideas. 

They all went into the same process to be evaluated. 

Mr. POMPEO. Yes, ma’am. I will tell you that the record that we 

received today does not reflect that. It simply doesn’t. We have 

read the emails. We have read everything that we could get our 

hands on. It’s taken us a long time to get it. But I will tell you, 

you just described all of this other information that you relied 

upon, and it doesn’t comport with the record that this committee 

has been able to establish today. 

And I want you to take a look at this chart to the left. You will 

see the increasing number of requests, over 600. I think data matters. The pictures are worth a lot. You see the increase in the requests, and then the bottom line is the increase in security. And 

you’ll note that the slope of those two lines is very different. 

Can you account for why that is, why we have increasing requests and yet no increase in security? 

Mrs. CLINTON. Well, Congressman, I can only tell you that I 

know a number of requests were fulfilled and some were not. But 

from my perspective, again, these were handled by the people that 

were assigned the task of evaluating them. And, you know, I think 

it’s important to, again, reiterate that although there were problems and deficiencies discovered by the Accountability Review 

Board, the general approach to have security professionals handle 

security requests, I think still stands. 

Mr. POMPEO. Yes, ma’am. I wish you’d have listened to those security professionals. You described Mr. Stevens as having the best 

knowledge of Libya of anyone, your words this morning, and yet 

when he asked for increased security he didn’t get it. 

Second chart, please. 

This chart does the same thing. I just talked to you about requests for additional assistance. This chart goes through, I won’t 

go through the numbers in detail, we’ve talked about them a bit, 

but it shows the increasing number of security incidents at the facility, your facility, the State Department facility in Benghazi, 

Libya. And then, again, it shows the increase in security being nonexistent. 

I assume your answer is the same with respect to the fact that 

we have increasing security incidents, but no corresponding increase in the amount of security? 

Mrs. CLINTON. Congressman, I just have to respectfully disagree. 

Many security requests were fulfilled. We’d be happy—— 

Mr. POMPEO. Well, ma’am—— 

Mrs. CLINTON [continuing]. To get that information for the 

record. So I can’t really tell what it is you’re putting on that poster—— 

Mr. POMPEO. Yeah. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
305 

Mrs. CLINTON [continuing]. But I know that a number of the security requests were fulfilled for Benghazi. 

Mr. POMPEO. Ma’am, what it shows is that the number of Diplomatic Security agents at the beginning of 2012 and those that were 

there the day of the murder of four Americans is no different. 

Mrs. CLINTON. Congressman, the decision, as I recall, was that 

the post, namely, Embassy Tripoli on behalf of Benghazi, requested 

five Diplomatic Security personnel and they did have that on the 

day that Chris Stevens was in Benghazi. Unfortunately, that 

proved insufficient in the face of the kind of attack that they were 

facing. 

Mr. POMPEO. Put the next poster up, please. 

Madam Secretary, you’re not likely to know who these two folks 

are, do you? 

Mrs. CLINTON. I do not. 

Mr. POMPEO. The one on the left is Muhammad al-Zahawi. He 

was the head of Ansar al-Sharia, a jihadist group based in 

Benghazi. The man on your left is Wissam bin Hamid. Were you 

aware that your folks in Benghazi, Libya, met with that man on 

the—within 48 hours before the attack? 

Mrs. CLINTON. I know nothing about any meeting with him. 

Mr. POMPEO. On September 11, on the day that he was killed, 

Ambassador Stevens sent a cable to the State Department talking 

about his meeting with Mr. bin Hamid. Are you aware of that 

cable? 

Mrs. CLINTON. No, I’m not. 

Mr. POMPEO. He said in his cable, he said, ‘‘They,’’ referring to 

Mr. Wissam bin Hamid, ‘‘They wanted an introductory meeting. 

They were here, they asked us what we needed to bring security 

to Benghazi.’’ So your officials were meeting with this man on the 

ground in Benghazi, Libya, discussing security two days before 

that. But in August of that same year, the United States Government had said that this very man was, ‘‘a young rebel leader who 

allegedly fought in Iraq under the flag of Al Qaeda.’’ 

Were you aware that our folks were either wittingly or unwittingly meeting with Al Qaeda on the ground in Benghazi, Libya, 

just hours before the attack? 

Mrs. CLINTON. I know nothing about this, Congressman. 

Mr. POMPEO. I think that’s deeply disturbing. I think the fact 

that your team was meeting with—— 

Mrs. CLINTON. I’m sorry, which team is this you are talking 

about? 

Mr. POMPEO. Yeah, it would have been—we don’t know exactly 

who—— 

Mrs. CLINTON. Well, it would be helpful—— 

Mr. POMPEO. It would have been one of the—one of your State 

Department employees, Madam Secretary. I don’t know which one. 

Perhaps you could enlighten us or we can get the records we need 

to do so. 

Mrs. CLINTON. Well—— 

Mr. POMPEO. To date we have not been able to learn that. 

Mrs. CLINTON. Well, since we didn’t have an ongoing significant 

presence of State Department personnel in Benghazi, I don’t know 

to whom you are referring. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
306 

Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Chairman, I’ll yield back the balance of my 

time. 

Chairman GOWDY. The gentleman from Kansas yields. 

The chair will now recognize the gentlelady from California, Ms. 

Sanchez. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you, Madam Secretary, for coming again to answer 

our questions. 

We know that over the last 17 months there have been a number 

of allegations that have been made with respect to you, and when 

the facts and the testimony and the record don’t support that, we 

seem to move on to the next, you know, new allegation. 

One of the more recent ones is that Republicans are claiming 

that because you received emails from Sidney Blumenthal, that he 

was your primary source for intelligence. Now, Chairman Gowdy 

claimed that Mr. Blumenthal was, and I’m going to quote him here, 

‘‘Secretary Clinton’s primary adviser on Libya because nearly half 

of all the emails sent to and from Secretary Clinton regarding 

Benghazi and Libya prior to the Benghazi terrorist attacks involved Sidney Blumenthal.’’ He also claimed that Mr. Blumenthal 

was, and I’m quoting again, ‘‘one of the folks providing her the 

largest volume of information about Libya.’’ 

Secretary Clinton, was Sidney Blumenthal your primary policy 

adviser or your primary intelligence officer? 

Mrs. CLINTON. No, of course not. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Was he the primary source of information that you 

were receiving on Libya? 

Mrs. CLINTON. No, absolutely not. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Can you tell us then who were you receiving information from and in what form? Because there has been a particular emphasis on email communication—— 

Mrs. CLINTON. Right. 

Ms. SANCHEZ [continuing]. And email communication only. 

Mrs. CLINTON. Well, as I testified earlier, I did not primarily conduct business on email with officials in our government. And I 

think the emails that have been produced thus far demonstrate 

that as well. 

As I said, I got intelligence briefings from the intelligence community. I had a very experienced group of senior diplomats who 

knew quite a bit about Libya. Deputy Secretary Bill Burns had 

been our nation’s top diplomat who actually had negotiated with 

Qadhafi. Prior to the entering in by the United States to support 

our European allies and Arab partners, I sent a team to meet with 

representatives of Qadhafi to see if there were some way that he 

would back down and back off of his increasingly hysterical threats 

against his own people. We had people like the Ambassador that 

I referenced earlier, who had served in Libya and had had the occasion to observe and to meet with Qadhafi. 

So we had a very large group of American diplomats, intelligence 

officers, and some private citizens who were experts in Libya who 

were available to our government, and we took advantage of every 

person we could with expertise to guide our decisionmaking. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. So would it be fair to say that you received information from Ambassador Stevens? 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
307 

Mrs. CLINTON. Yes. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. The Assistant Secretary for Near Eastern Affairs? 

Mrs. CLINTON. Yes. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. The Director of Policy Planning, Jacob Sullivan? 

Mrs. CLINTON. Yes. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. The National Security Council? 

Mrs. CLINTON. Yes. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. The intelligence community? 

Mrs. CLINTON. Yes. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. The Defense Department? 

Mrs. CLINTON. Yes. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. This weekend one of our colleagues on this panel, 

Mr. Pompeo, went on ‘‘Meet the Press,’’ and I wonder if we could 

cue up the video. He had this exchange. Can we please play the 

video clip? 

[Video shown.] 

Ms. SANCHEZ. That clip, for me, just defies all logic. And I think 

Andrea Mitchell correctly called him out on something that was a 

falsehood. 

Secretary Clinton, what did you think when you heard that clip? 

Mrs. CLINTON. Well, that it was factually untrue. And I think 

your questioning and what I have stated today is a much clearer 

and more factual description of how we gathered information to 

make our decisions regarding Libya. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. With your answer that you believe it to be factually incorrect, I just want to add that The Washington Post fact 

checker immediately awarded that claim four Pinocchios, which is 

the worst rating possible, and I’m going to quote The Post on what 

they said about that quote. 

‘‘Looking at her private emails is just part of the picture and it 

ignores the vast amount of information, much of it classified, that 

is available to the Secretary of State.’’ 

Secretary Clinton, would you agree with that statement from The 

Washington Post? 

Mrs. CLINTON. Yes, I would. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Okay. So it seems to me, you know, there have 

been allegations that the work that this committee has done has 

been political in nature and that much of the facts have already 

been decided before all of the evidence is in, including your testimony here today. When I see clips like that, it sort of supports the 

theory that this panel is not really interested in investigating what 

happened just prior to the evening of and immediately in the aftermath of September 11, 2012, but that, in fact, there is another motive behind that. 

We have you here, and so while you are here I want to make the 

most of your time and allow you to sort of debunk many of the 

myths that have been generated over the last 17 months, most of 

which have no factual basis for those being said. 

One is that you seemingly were disengaged the evening of September 11, 2012. For example, Mike Huckabee accused you, as Mr. 

Cummings said, of ‘‘ignoring the warning calls from dying Americans in Benghazi.’’ And Senator Rand Paul stated that ‘‘Benghazi 

was a 3 a.m. phone call that you never picked up.’’ And Senator 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
308 

Lindsey Graham tweeted, ‘‘Where the hell were you on the night 

of the Benghazi attack?’’ 

Those appear to be based on the testimony of witnesses and the 

documentation that we have obtained in this committee and other 

previous committees. They seem to run counter to the truth, because the testimony we have received states pretty much that you 

were deeply engaged the night of the attacks. 

So can you describe for us what the initial hours of that night 

were like for you and how you learned about the attacks and what 

your initial thoughts and actions were? 

Mrs. CLINTON. Well, Congresswoman, I learned about attacks 

from a State Department official rushing into my office shortly 

after or around 4 o’clock to tell me that our compound in Benghazi 

had been attacked. We immediately summoned all of the top officials in the State Department for them to begin reaching out. The 

most important quick call was to try to reach Chris himself. That 

was not possible. Then to have the Diplomatic Security people try 

to reach their agents. That was not possible. They were, obviously, 

defending themselves along with the Ambassador and Sean Smith. 

We reached the second in command in Tripoli. He had heard 

shortly before we reached him from Chris Stevens telling him that 

they were under attack. We began to reach out to everyone we 

could possibly think who could help with this terrible incident. 

During the course of the, you know, following hours, obviously, I 

spoke to the White House. I spoke to CIA Director Petraeus. I 

spoke to the Libyan officials, because I hoped that there were some 

way that they could gather up and deploy those who had been part 

of the insurgency to defend our compound. I had conference calls 

with our team in Tripoli. I was on a, what’s called a SVTC, a, you 

know, video conference with officials who had operational responsibilities in the Defense Department, in the CIA, at the National 

Security Council. 

It was just a swirl and whirl of constant effort to try to figure 

out what we could do, and it was deeply—it was deeply distressing 

when we heard that the efforts by our CIA colleagues were not successful, that they had had to evacuate the security officers, our 

Diplomatic Security officers, that they had recovered Sean Smith’s 

body. And they could not find the Ambassador. We didn’t know 

whether he had escaped and was still alive or not. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. If I may, because my time is running short, I just 

want to point out that you spoke with folks on the ground, you 

spoke with folks in the White House, the CIA, the Libyan President 

of the General National Congress. 

Now, interestingly enough, former Director of the CIA David 

Petraeus has not been before this committee and has not spoken 

with this committee, but he did testify before the House Intelligence Committee in 2012, and he said that you personally called 

him and asked him for help that night. 

And I just want to end on this quote. ‘‘When Secretary Clinton 

called me later that afternoon to indicate that Ambassador Stevens 

was missing and asked for help, I directed our folks to ensure that 

we were doing everything possible. And that is, of course, what 

they were doing that night.’’ Is that correct? 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
309 

Mrs. CLINTON. That is. And also the Defense Department was 

doing everything it could possibly do. We had a plane bringing additional security from Tripoli to Benghazi. There was an enormous 

amount of activity. Everyone, it was all hands on deck, everyone 

jumped in to try to figure out what they could do. The attack on 

the compound was very fast. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. So would it be safe to say that you were fully engaged that evening? 

Mrs. CLINTON. That is certainly safe to say, Congresswoman. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Thank you. And I yield back. 

Chairman GOWDY. The gentlelady from California yields back. 

The chair will now recognize the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Jordan. 

Mr. JORDAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

You just gave a long answer, Madam Secretary, to Ms. Sanchez 

about what you heard that night, what you were doing, but nowhere in there did you mention a video. You didn’t mention a video 

because there was never a video-inspired protest in Benghazi. 

There was in Cairo, but not in Benghazi. Victoria Nuland, your 

spokesperson at the State Department, hours after the attack said 

this: ‘‘Benghazi has been attacked by militants in Cairo. Police 

have removed demonstrators.’’ 

Benghazi, you got weapons and explosions. Cairo, you got spray 

paint and rocks. One hour before the attack in Benghazi, Chris Stevens walks a diplomat to the front gate. The Ambassador didn’t report a demonstration. He didn’t report it because it never happened. An eyewitness in the Command Center that night on the 

ground said no protests, no demonstration. Two intelligence reports 

that day: No protests, no demonstration. 

The attack starts at 3:42 eastern time, ends at approximately 

11:40 p.m. that night. At 4:06, an ops alert goes out across the 

State Department. It says this: ‘‘Mission under attack. Armed men. 

Shots fired. Explosions heard.’’ No mention of a video, no mention 

of a protest, no mention of a demonstration. 

But the best evidence is Greg Hicks, the number two guy in 

Libya, the guy who worked side by side with Ambassador Stevens. 

He was asked, if there had been a protest, would the Ambassador 

have reported it? Mr. Hicks’ response: ‘‘Absolutely. For there to 

have been a demonstration on Chris Stevens’ front door and him 

not to have reported it is unbelievable,’’ Mr. Hicks said. He said, 

‘‘Secondly, if it had been reported, he would have been out the back 

door within minutes, and there was a back gate.’’ 

Everything points to a terrorist attack. We just heard from Mr. 

Pompeo about the long history of terrorist incidents, terrorist violence in the country. And yet, five days later, Susan Rice goes on 

five TV shows and she says this: ‘‘Benghazi was a spontaneous reaction as a consequence of a video,’’ a statement we all know is 

false. 

But don’t take my word for it. Here is what others have said. 

‘‘Rice was off the reservation, off the reservation on five networks. 

White House worried about the politics.’’ 

Republicans didn’t make those statements. They were made by 

the people who worked for you in the Near Eastern Affairs Bureau, 

the actual experts on Libya in the State Department. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
310 

So if there is no evidence for a video-inspired protest, then where 

did the false narrative start? It started with you, Madam Secretary. At 10:08 on the night of the attack you released this statement: ‘‘Some have sought to justify the vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet.’’ 

At 10:08, with no evidence, at 10:08, before the attack is over, 

at 10:08, when Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty are still on the 

roof of the Annex fighting for their lives, the official statement of 

the State Department blames a video. Why? 

Mrs. CLINTON. During the day on September 11, as you did mention, Congressman, there was a very large protest against our Embassy in Cairo. Protesters breached the walls. They tore down the 

American flag. And it was of grave concern to us because the inflammatory video had been shown on Egyptian television, which 

has a broader reach than just inside Egypt. 

And if you look at what I said, I referred to the video that night 

in a very specific way. I said, ‘‘Some have sought to justify the attack because of the video.’’ I used those words deliberately, not to 

ascribe a motive to every attacker, but as a warning to those across 

the region that there was no justification for further attacks. 

And, in fact, during the course of that week we had many attacks 

that were all about the video. We had people breaching the walls 

of our Embassies in Tunis and Khartoum. We had people, thankfully not Americans, dying at protests. 

Mr. JORDAN. Secretary Clinton—— 

Mrs. CLINTON. But that’s what was going on, Congressman. 

Mr. JORDAN. Secretary Clinton, I appreciate most of the attacks 

were after the attack on the facility in Benghazi. You mentioned 

Cairo. It was interesting what else Ms. Nuland said that day. She 

said, ‘‘If pressed by the press, if there is a connection between 

Cairo and Benghazi,’’ she said this, ‘‘There is no connection between the two.’’ 

So here is what troubles me. Your experts knew the truth. Your 

spokesperson knew the truth. Greg Hicks knew the truth. But 

what troubles me more is I think you knew the truth. 

I want to show you a few things here. You’re looking at an email 

you sent to your family. Here is what you said at 11 o’clock that 

night, approximately one hour after you told the American people 

of the video, you say to your family, ‘‘Two officers were killed today 

in Benghazi by an Al Qaeda-like group.’’ You tell the American people one thing, you tell your family an entirely different story. 

Also, on the night of the attack, you had a call with the President of Libya. Here is what you said to him: ‘‘Ansar al-Sharia is 

claiming responsibility.’’ It’s interesting, Mr. Khattala, one of the 

guys arrested and charged, actually belonged to that group. 

And finally, and most significantly, the next day, within 24 

hours, you had a conversation with the Egyptian Prime Minister. 

You told him this: ‘‘We know the attack in Libya had nothing to 

do with the film. It was a planned attack, not a protest.’’ 

Let me read that one more time. ‘‘We know,’’ not we think, not 

it might be, ‘‘We know the attack in Libya had nothing to do with 

the film. It was a planned attack, not a protest.’’ State Department 

experts knew the truth. You knew the truth. But that’s not what 

the American people got. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
311 

And, again, the American people want to know why. Why didn’t 

you tell the American people exactly what you told the Egyptian 

Prime Minister? 

Mrs. CLINTON. Well, I think if you look at the statement that I 

made, I clearly said that it was an attack. And I also said that 

there were some who tried to justify it on the basis—— 

Mr. JORDAN. Secretary Clinton—— 

Mrs. CLINTON [continuing]. On the basis of the video, Congressman. And I think—— 

Mr. JORDAN. But real quick. Calling it an attack is like calling 

the sky is blue. Of course, it was an attack. 

Mrs. CLINTON. Well, it hardly—— 

Mr. JORDAN. We want to know the truth. The statement you sent 

out was a statement on Benghazi, and you say, ‘‘vicious behavior 

as a response to inflammatory material on the Internet.’’ If that’s 

not pointing as a motive being a video, I don’t know what is. And 

that’s certainly how the American people thought. 

Mrs. CLINTON. Well, Congressman, there was a lot of conflicting 

information that we were trying to make sense of. The situation 

was very fluid. It was fast moving. 

There was also a claim of responsibility by Ansar al-Sharia. And 

when I talked to the Egyptian Prime Minister, I said that this was 

a claim of responsibility by Ansar al-Sharia, by a group that was 

affiliated or at least wanted to be affiliated with Al Qaeda. 

Sometime after that, the next day, early the next morning after 

that, on the 12th or 13th, they retracted their claim of responsibility. 

Mr. JORDAN. Madam Secretary—— 

Mrs. CLINTON. And I think if you look at what all of us were trying to do, and we were in a position, Congressman, of trying to 

make sense of a lot of incoming information and watched the way 

the intelligence community tried to make sense of it. 

Mr. JORDAN. Madam Secretary, there was not conflicting—— 

Mrs. CLINTON. So all I can say is, nobody—— 

Mr. JORDAN [continuing]. There was not conflicting information 

the day of the attack, because your press secretary said, ‘‘If 

pressed, there is no connection between Cairo and Benghazi.’’ It 

was clear. You’re the ones who muddied it up, not the information. 

Mrs. CLINTON. Well, there’s no connection—— 

Mr. JORDAN. Here’s what I think—here’s what I think’s going on. 

Here’s what I think’s going on. Let me show you one more slide. 

Again, this is from Victoria Nuland, your press person. She says to 

Jake Sullivan and Philippe Reines, subject line reads this: ‘‘Romney statement on Libya. Email says this is what Ben was talking 

about.’’ I assume Ben is the now somewhat famous Ben Rhodes, 

author of the talking points memo. This email is at 10:35, 27 minutes after your 10:08 statement, 27 minutes after you’ve told everyone it’s a video. While Americans are still fighting because the attack’s still going on, your top people are talking politics. 

Seems to me that night you had three options, Secretary. You 

could tell the truth like you did with your family, like you did with 

the Libyan President, like you did with the Egyptian Prime Minister, tell them it was a terrorist attack. You could say, ‘‘You know 

what? We’re not quite sure. Don’t really know for sure.’’ I don’t 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
312 

think the evidence is there. I think it’s all in the first one. But you 

could have done that. 

But you picked a third option. You picked the video narrative. 

You picked the one with no evidence. And you did it because Libya 

was supposed to be, as Mr. Roskam pointed out, this great success 

story for the Obama White House and the Clinton State Department. And a key campaign theme that year was GM’s alive, bin 

Laden’s dead, Al Qaeda’s on the run. And now you have a terrorist 

attack, and it’s a terrorist attack in Libya, and it’s just 56 days before an election. 

You can live with the protest about a video. That won’t hurt you. 

But a terrorist attack will. So you can’t be square with the American people. You can tell your family it’s a terrorist attack, but not 

the American people. You can tell the President of Libya it’s a terrorist attack, but not the American people. And you can tell the 

Egyptian Prime Minister it’s a terrorist attack, but you can’t tell 

your own people the truth. 

Madam Secretary, Americans can live with the fact that good 

people sometimes give their lives for this country. They don’t like 

it. They mourn for those families. They pray for those families. But 

they can live with it. But what they can’t take, what they can’t live 

with is when their government is not square with them. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Chairman GOWDY. Madam Secretary, you’re welcome to answer 

the question if you would like to. 

Mrs. CLINTON. Well, I wrote a whole chapter about this in my 

book ‘‘Hard Choices.’’ I’d be glad to send it to you, Congressman, 

because I think the insinuations that you are making do a grave 

disservice to the hard work that people in the State Department, 

the intelligence community, the Defense Department, the White 

House did during the course of some very confusing and difficult 

days. 

There is no doubt in my mind that we did the best we could with 

the information that we had at the time. And if you’d actually go 

back and read what I said that night—— 

Mr. JORDAN. I have. 

Mrs. CLINTON [continuing]. I was very careful in saying that 

some have sought to justify—in fact, the man that has been arrested as one of the ring leaders of what happened in Benghazi, 

Ahmed Abu Khattala, is reported to have said it was the video that 

motivated him. 

None of us can speak to the individual motivations of those terrorists who overran our compound and who attacked our CIA 

Annex. There were probably a number of different motivations. I 

think the intelligence community, which took the lead on trying to 

sort this out, as they should have, went through a series of interpretations and analysis. And we were all guided by that. We were 

not making up the intelligence. We were trying to get it, make 

sense of it, and then to share it. 

When I was speaking to the Egyptian Prime Minister, or in the 

other two examples you showed, we had been told by Ansar alSharia that they took credit for it. It wasn’t until about 24 more 

hours later that they retracted taking credit for it. 

Mr. JORDAN. Secretary Clinton—— 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
313 

Mrs. CLINTON. We also knew, Congressman, because my responsibility was for what was happening throughout the region. I needed to be talking about the video because I needed to be putting 

other governments and other people on notice that we were not 

going to let them get away with attacking us as they did in Tunis, 

as they did in Khartoum. And in Tunis, there were thousands of 

demonstrators who were there only because of the video, breaching 

the walls of our Embassy, burning down the American school. I 

was calling everybody in the Tunisian Government I could get, and 

finally President Marzouki sent his presidential guard to break it 

up. 

There was example after example. That’s what I was trying to 

do during those very desperate and difficult hours. 

Mr. JORDAN. Secretary Clinton—if I could, Mr. Chairman—Secretary Clinton, you said my insinuation. I’m not insinuating anything. I’m reading what you said, plain language. ‘‘We know the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film.’’ That’s as plain as 

it can get. That’s vastly different than ‘‘vicious behavior justified by 

Internet material.’’ Why didn’t you just speak plain to the American people? 

Mrs. CLINTON. I did. If you look at my statement as opposed to 

what I was saying to the Egyptian Prime Minister, I did state 

clearly and I said it again in more detail the next morning, as did 

the President. 

I’m sorry that it doesn’t fit your narrative, Congressman. I can 

only tell you what the facts were. And the facts, as the Democratic 

members have pointed out in their most recent collection of them, 

support this process that was going on where the intelligence community was pulling together information. 

And it’s very much harder to do it these days than it used to be 

because you have to monitor social media, for goodness sakes. 

That’s where the Ansar al-Sharia claim was placed. 

I think the intelligence community did the best job they could, 

and we all did our best job to try to figure out what was going on 

and then to convey that to the American people. 

Chairman GOWDY. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The chair will now recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. 

Schiff. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Madam Secretary, we are almost at the end of the first round of 

questions. I’ll have an opportunity, then I think the chairman will 

before we have a break just to let you know where we are in the 

scheme of things. 

So I want to take a moment to think about what we’ve covered 

in this first round, in particular a comment on where this began 

with the chairman’s statement. The chairman said at the outset of 

the hearing that the American people were entitled to the truth— 

the truth about what happened in Benghazi, the truth about the 

security there, the truth about what happened after the attack. 

The implication of this, of course, is that the American people 

don’t know the truth, that this is the first investigation we’ve ever 

had. The reality is, we’ve had eight investigations. We’ve gone 

through this endlessly. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
314 

And if you just look at the documentary record, we have the ARB 

report. We have the report of the Armed Services Committee led 

by Republican Buck McKeon, which debunked the stand-down 

order allegation. We have the report of the Committee on Government Reform. We have the report of the Senate Homeland Security 

Committee. We have the report of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. We have the GOP Conference’s own report. We have the report of the Intelligence Committee, on which I serve. 

Now, bear in mind, these aren’t with their accompanying exhibits 

or the classified stuff, because it would be up through the ceiling 

if I included them. 

This is the report of our committee. This is what $4.7 million dollars of taxpayer money buy you. This is what 17 months of investigation have shown. 

Now, the chairman said, and he is a very good lawyer, and a 

good former prosecutor, we have a lot of former prosecutors here 

on the panel, he gave you a great recitation of the number of witnesses and the number of documents. There are too many good 

prosecutors on this panel not to know that when a lawyer describes 

the metrics of the success of an investigation by the sheer number 

of people they have talked to, or the volume of documents, but says 

nothing about the substance of what they have learned, that there 

is a problem. 

And the reality is that after 17 months we have nothing new to 

tell the families. We have nothing new to tell the American people. 

We have discovered nothing that alters the core conclusions of the 

eight investigations that went on before. 

Now, my colleagues have been saying quite often this week with 

amazing regularity that this is a fact-centric investigation, and I 

agree. So I’d like to talk about some of the facts which are centric 

to this investigation, because while the American people are entitled to the truth about Benghazi, they are also entitled to the truth 

about our committee. 

Fact: What gave rise to your appearance here today was many 

months ago a group called the Stop Hillary PAC, which aired an 

offensive ad during the Democratic debate showing the tombstone 

of Ambassador Stevens, among other things, delivered 264,000 signatures demanding that you appear before us. 

Fact: It was the next day the majority approached us to have you 

come before this committee. 

Fact: After The New York Times issued its story in March, this 

committee canceled all other hearings except for the hearing with 

a witness named Clinton. 

Fact: We abandoned our plans to bring in the Secretary of Defense and the head of the CIA. 

Fact: We haven’t had a single hearing from the Department of 

Defense, with the Department of Defense in 17 months. 

Fact: Of the 70,000 pages of documents obtained by the Select 

Committee, the only documents the chairman has chosen to release 

publicly are your emails with Sidney Blumenthal. 

Fact: Of the 32 press releases that have been issued since March 

of this year, 27 of them are about you or the State Department and 

five are about everything else. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
315 

Fact: As recently as last week, the chairman issued a 13-page 

letter which alleges that you risked the lives of people by sending 

an email that contained the name of a classified CIA source. 

Fact: The CIA told us there was nothing in that email that was 

classified, nor was the name of that person, who is well known to 

many. 

The chairman has said that this will be the final, definitive report. One thing I think we can tell already: There will be nothing 

final about this report. Whenever we finish, if ever we finish, the 

problem we have had as a committee is we don’t know what we are 

looking for. But there won’t be a final conclusion, there won’t be 

anything definitive about the work of this committee, because unlike the Accountability Review Board that operated in a nonpartisan way, it’s unlikely the majority here will even consult with 

us on what their final report looks like. 

Those who want to believe the worst will believe the worst. 

Those that want to believe that this is a partisan exercise will believe it. As I said from the very beginning of this investigation, the 

only way this committee will add any value to what’s gone on before is if we can find a way to work together and reach a common 

conclusion. 

But it is plain that is not their object. The chairman might say 

ignore the words of our Republican leadership and ignore the 

words of our Republican Members, ignore the words of our own 

GOP investigator, judge us by our actions. But it is the actions of 

this committee that are the most damning of all because they have 

been singularly focused on you. 

Let me ask you briefly, because I want to expand on just the— 

what I think is really the core theory here. I want to give you a 

chance to respond to it. 

You know, as a prosecutor, we are taught that every case should 

have a core theory and all the evidence and the witnesses go back 

to that core theory. And I have wrestled as I have listened to my 

colleagues today, as I have over the 17 months, what is the core 

theory of their case? What are they trying to convey? And I have 

to say it is confusing. 

I think the core theory is this: That you deliberately interfered 

with security in Benghazi and that resulted in people dying. I 

think that is the case they want to make. And notwithstanding 

how many investigations we have had that have found absolutely 

no merit to that, that is the impression they wish to give. 

Well, I have to say, I’m a little confused today because my colleague pointed to an email suggesting that you weren’t aware that 

we had a presence in Benghazi. So if you weren’t aware we had a 

presence, I don’t know how you could have interfered with the security there. But, nonetheless, I do think that’s what they’re aiming at. 

I know the Ambassador was someone you helped pick. I know 

the Ambassador was a friend of yours. And I wonder if you would 

like to comment on what it is like to be the subject of an allegation 

that you deliberately interfered with security that cost the life of 

a friend. 

Mrs. CLINTON. Well, Congressman, it’s a very personally painful 

accusation. It has been rejected and disproven by nonpartisan, disVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:25 Apr 05, 2016 Jkt 098884 PO 00000 Frm 00317 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\B884P2.XXX B884P2

srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
316 

passionate investigators. But, nevertheless, having it continued to 

be bandied around is deeply distressing to me. 

You know, I would imagine I’ve thought more about what happened than all of you put together. I’ve lost more sleep than all of 

you put together. I have been racking my brain about what more 

could have been done or should have been done. 

And so when I took responsibility, I took it as a challenge and 

an obligation to make sure before I left the State Department that 

what we could learn, as I’m sure my predecessors did after Beirut 

and after Nairobi and Dar es Salaam and after all of the other attacks on our facilities, I’m sure all of them, Republican and Democrat alike, especially where there was loss of American life, said, 

Okay, what must we do better? How do we protect the men and 

women that we send without weapons, without support from the 

military into some of the most dangerous places in the world? 

And so I will continue to speak out and do everything I can from 

whatever position I’m in to honor the memory of those we lost and 

to work as hard as I know to try to create more understanding and 

cooperation between the State Department, our diplomats, our development professionals from USAID, and the Congress so that the 

Congress is a partner with us, as was the case in previous times. 

I would like us to get back to those times, Congressman, whereas 

I think one of you said, Beirut, we lost far more Americans not 

once but twice within a year. There was no partisan effort. People 

rose above politics. A Democratic Congress worked with a Republican administration to say, What do we need to learn? Out of that 

came the legislation for the Accountability Review Board. 

Similarly, after we lost more Americans in the bombings in East 

Africa, again, Republicans and Democrats worked together, said, 

What do we need to do better? 

So I’m—I’m an optimist, Congressman, I’m hoping that that will 

be the outcome of this and every other effort so that we really do 

honor not only those we lost, but all of those who right as we speak 

are serving in dangerous places representing the values and the interests of the American people. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Thank you, Madam Secretary. 

Chairman GOWDY. The gentleman from California yields back. 

I’m going to address a couple of things that he said and then recognize myself. Because he invoked the family members of the four, 

Madam Secretary, and partially this will be for your benefit also, 

but I want to specifically address the family members that are 

here. 

There is no theory of the prosecution, Mr. Schiff, because there 

is no prosecution. There is a very big difference between a prosecution where you already have reached a conclusion and you’re just 

trying to prove it to people. 

This is an investigation, which is why it’s so sad that nowhere 

in that stack that you just put up there were the emails of Secretary Clinton, the emails of the Ambassador, 50,000—50,000 

pages worth of documents, eyewitnesses. That’s the real tragedy. 

To the family and the friends, when you’re told that there have 

been seven previous investigations and an ARB, you should immediately ask, Why did you miss so many witnesses? Why did you 

miss so many documents? 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
317 

This is not a prosecution, Mr. Schiff. You and I are both familiar 

with them. I’ve reached no conclusions, and I would advise you to 

not reach any conclusions either until we reach the end. There are 

20 more witnesses. So I’ll agree not to reach any conclusions if 

you’ll do the same. 

With that, Madam Secretary, regardless of where he ranked in 

the order of advisers, it is undisputed that a significant number of 

your emails were to or from a Sidney Blumenthal. Now, he did not 

work for the State Department. He didn’t work for the U.S. Government at all. He wanted to work for the State Department, but 

the White House said no to him. 

Do you recall who specifically at the White House rejected Sidney 

Blumenthal? 

Mrs. CLINTON. No, I do not. 

Chairman GOWDY. After he was turned down for a job at the 

State Department by the White House, he went to work where? 

Mrs. CLINTON. I think he had a number of consulting contracts 

with different entities. 

Chairman GOWDY. Well, if he had a number of them, do you recall any of them? 

Mrs. CLINTON. I know that he did some work for my husband. 

Chairman GOWDY. Well, he worked for the Clinton Foundation. 

Mrs. CLINTON. That’s correct. 

Chairman GOWDY. He worked for Media Matters. 

Mrs. CLINTON. I’m sure he did. 

Chairman GOWDY. He worked for Correct the Record. 

Mrs. CLINTON. I’m sure he did. 

Chairman GOWDY. When you were asked about Sidney 

Blumenthal, you said he was an old friend—— 

Mrs. CLINTON. Uh-huh. 

Chairman GOWDY [continuing]. Who sent you unsolicited emails, 

which you passed on in some instances because you wanted to hear 

from people outside what you called ‘‘the bubble.’’ 

We will ignore for a second whether or not Sidney Blumenthal 

is outside the bubble, but I do want to ask you about a couple of 

those other comments. Because what you left out was that he was 

an old friend who knew absolutely nothing about Libya, was critical of President Obama and others that you worked with, loved to 

send you political and image advice, had business interests in 

Libya, which he not only alerted you to but solicited your help for. 

And you often forwarded his emails but usually only after you redacted out any identifiers so nobody knew where the information 

was coming from. 

What does the word ‘‘unsolicited’’ mean to you? 

Mrs. CLINTON. It means that I did not ask him to send me the 

information that he sent me. And as I have previously stated, some 

of it I found interesting, some of it I did not. Some of it I forwarded, some of it I did not. 

I did not know anything about any business interests. I thought 

that, just as I said previously, newspaper articles, journalists, of 

which he is one, a former journalist, had some interesting insights. 

And so, you know, we took them on board and evaluated them, and 

some were helpful and others were not. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
318 

Chairman GOWDY. We are going to get to all the points you just 

made, but I want to start with your public comment that these 

emails were unsolicited. 

You wrote to him, ‘‘Another keeper. Thanks. And please keep 

them coming.’’ 

‘‘Greetings from Kabul, and thanks for keeping this stuff coming.’’ 

‘‘Any other info about it?’’ 

‘‘What are you hearing now?’’ 

‘‘Got it. We’ll follow up tomorrow.’’ 

‘‘Anything else to convey?’’ Now, that one is interesting, because 

that was the very email where Mr. Blumenthal was asking you to 

intervene on behalf of a business deal that he was pursuing in 

Libya. 

What did you mean by ‘‘What are you hearing now?’’ 

Mrs. CLINTON. I have no idea, Congressman. They started out 

unsolicited. And, as I said, some were of interest; I passed them on. 

And some were not. 

Chairman GOWDY. Well—— 

Mrs. CLINTON. And so he continued to provide me information 

that was made available to him. 

Chairman GOWDY. I don’t want to parse words, and I don’t want 

to be hyper-technical, because it is not a huge point, but it is an 

important point. You didn’t say they started off unsolicited. 

Mrs. CLINTON. Well, they did—— 

Chairman GOWDY. You said they were—you said they were unsolicited. 

Mrs. CLINTON. Well, they were unsolicited. But, obviously, I did 

respond to some of them. 

Chairman GOWDY. Well—— 

Mrs. CLINTON. And I’m sure that encouraged him. 

Chairman GOWDY. ‘‘Anything else to convey?’’ 

‘‘What are you hearing now?’’ 

‘‘I’m going to Paris tomorrow night and will meet with TNC leaders, so this and additional info useful.’’ 

‘‘Still don’t have electricity or BlackBerry coverage post-Irene, so 

I’ve had to resort to my new iPad. Let me know if you receive this.’’ 

We’ll talk about the new iPad in a little bit. 

Here’s another one: ‘‘This report is, in part, a response to your 

questions.’’ That’s an email from him to you. ‘‘This report is, in 

part, a response to your questions. There will be further information in the next day.’’ 

If you are the one asking him for information, how does that 

square with the definition of ‘‘unsolicited’’? 

Mrs. CLINTON. I said it began that way, Mr. Chairman. 

And I will add that both Chris Stevens and Gene Cretz found 

some of the information interesting, far more than I could because 

they knew some of the characters who were being mentioned. And 

they were the ones, the kind of persons with the expertise that I 

asked to evaluate to see whether there was any useful information. 

Chairman GOWDY. We are going to get to that in a second. 

Now, before you give Mr. Blumenthal too much credit, you agree, 

he didn’t write a single one of those cables or memos he sent you? 

Mrs. CLINTON. I’m sorry, what? 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
319 

Chairman GOWDY. He didn’t write a single one of those cables or 

memos. 

Mrs. CLINTON. I don’t know who wrote them. He’s the one who 

sent them to me. 

Chairman GOWDY. Would you be surprised to know not a single 

one of those was from him? 

Mrs. CLINTON. I don’t know where he got the information that 

he was sending—— 

Chairman GOWDY. Did you ask? 

Mrs. CLINTON [continuing]. To me. What? 

Chairman GOWDY. Did you ask? ‘‘You’re sending me very specific, 

detailed intelligence. What is your source?’’ That seems to me like 

a pretty good question. 

Mrs. CLINTON. Well, I did learn later that he was talking to or 

sharing information from former American intelligence officials. 

Chairman GOWDY. By the name of? 

Who wrote those cables? 

Mrs. CLINTON. I don’t recall. I don’t know, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman GOWDY. You had his information passed on to others, 

but at least on one occasion you ask Ms. Abedin, ‘‘Can you print 

without any identifiers?’’ Why would you want his name removed? 

Mrs. CLINTON. Because I thought it would be more important to 

just look at the substance and to make a determination as to 

whether or not there was anything to it. 

Chairman GOWDY. Well, don’t people have a right to know the 

source of the information so they can determine credibility? 

Mrs. CLINTON. But he wasn’t, as you just said, the source of the 

information. That was—— 

Chairman GOWDY. But you didn’t know that, Madam Secretary, 

and that’s what you just said. 

Mrs. CLINTON. No. No, Mr. Chairman. I said that I knew that 

he didn’t have the sources to provide that information. I knew he 

was getting it from somewhere else, whether they—he knew a lot 

of journalists. He knew others in Washington. It could’ve been a 

variety of people. 

Chairman GOWDY. Well, if you are going to determine credibility, 

don’t you want to know the source? 

Mrs. CLINTON. Well, it wasn’t credibility so much as trying to follow the threads that were mentioned about individuals. And as I’ve 

already stated, some of it was useful, and some of it was not. 

Chairman GOWDY. Well, did the President know that Mr. 

Blumenthal was advising you? 

Mrs. CLINTON. He wasn’t advising me. And, you know, Mr. 

Chairman—— 

Chairman GOWDY. Did he know that he was your most prolific 

emailer that we have found on the subjects of Libya and Benghazi? 

Mrs. CLINTON. That’s because I didn’t do most of my work about 

Libya—— 

Chairman GOWDY. That’s fair. 

Mrs. CLINTON [continuing]. On email. 

Chairman GOWDY. I am not challenging that, Madam Secretary. 

I am not challenging that. All I am telling you is the documents 

show he was your most prolific emailer on Libya and Benghazi. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
320 

And my question to you is, did the President, the same White 

House that said you can’t handle him—can’t hire him, did he know 

that he was advising you? 

Mrs. CLINTON. He was not advising me. And I have no reason to 

have ever mentioned that or know that the President knew that. 

Chairman GOWDY. All right. 

I want to draw your attention to an email about Libya from Mr. 

Blumenthal to you, dated April 2011, and it will be exhibit 67. And 

this is informative. ‘‘Should we pass on’’—and then in 

parentheticals—‘‘(unidentified) to the White House?’’ 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
321 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 402 here 98884.263
322 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 403 here 98884.264
323 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 404 here 98884.265
324 

If you were going to pass something on to the White House, why 

would you take off the identifiers? 

Mrs. CLINTON. Because it was important to evaluate the information. And from a lot of the intelligence that I have certainly reviewed over the years, you often don’t have the source of the intelligence. You look at the intelligence, and you try to determine 

whether or not it is credible, whether it can be followed up on. 

Chairman GOWDY. Well, I am going to accept the fact that you 

and I come from different backgrounds, because I can tell you that 

an unsourced comment could never be uttered in any courtroom. 

You have to ask—— 

Mrs. CLINTON. Well, we’re not talking about courtrooms, Mr. 

Chairman. We’re talking about intelligence, and—— 

Chairman GOWDY. No, we’re talking about credibility—— 

Mrs. CLINTON. Well—— 

Chairman GOWDY [continuing]. And the ability to assess who a 

source is and whether or not that source has ever been to Libya, 

knows anything about Libya, or has business interests in Libya, all 

of which would be important if you were going to determine the 

credibility, which I think is why you probably took his information 

off of what you sent to the White House. 

But here is another possible explanation that may give us a 

sense of why, maybe, the White House didn’t want you to hire him 

in the first place. 

In one email, he wrote this about the President’s Secretary of Defense: ‘‘I infer Gates’ problem is losing an internal debate. Tyler’’— 

and, by the way, ‘‘Tyler’’ is Tyler Drumheller, that is who actually 

authored the cables that you got from Mr. Blumenthal. ‘‘Tyler 

knows him well and says he’s a mean, vicious, little’’—I am not 

going to say the word, but he did. This is an email from 

Blumenthal to you about the President’s Secretary of Defense. 

And here is another one about the President’s National Security 

Advisor: ‘‘Frankly, Tom Donilon’s babbling rhetoric about narratives on the phone briefing of reporters on March the 10th has 

inspired derision among serious foreign policy analysts both here 

and abroad.’’ 

And here is another one from what you say is your old friend 

Sidney Blumenthal. This is a quote from him: ‘‘I would say 

Obama’’—and, by the way, he left the ‘‘President’’ part out. ‘‘I 

would say Obama appears to be intent on seizing defeat from the 

jaws of victory. He and his political cronies in the White House and 

Chicago are, to say the least, unenthusiastic about regime change 

in Libya. Obama’s lukewarm and self-contradicting statements 

have produced what is, at least for the moment, operational paralysis.’’ 

I think that may give us a better understanding of why the 

White House may have told you you cannot hire him. 

Blumenthal could not get hired by our government, didn’t pass 

any background check at all, had no role with our government, had 

never been to Libya, had no expertise in Libya, was critical of the 

President and others that you worked with, shared polling data 

with you on the intervention in Libya, gave you political advice on 

how to take credit for Libya, all the while working for the Clinton 

Foundation and some pseudo news entities. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
325 

And, Madam Secretary, he had unfettered access to you. And he 

used that access, at least on one occasion, to ask you to intervene 

on behalf of a business venture. Do you recall that? 

Mrs. CLINTON. You know, Mr. Chairman, if you don’t have any 

friends who say unkind things privately, I congratulate you. But, 

from my perspective, I don’t—— 

Chairman GOWDY. I would like to think I would correct them. 

Mrs. CLINTON. I don’t know what this line of questioning does to 

help us get to the bottom of the deaths of four Americans—— 

Chairman GOWDY. I will be happy to—— 

Mrs. CLINTON [continuing]. And help us do better. But—— 

Chairman GOWDY. I will be happy to help you understand that, 

Madam Secretary. 

Mrs. CLINTON. But I want to reiterate what I said to Congresswoman Sanchez. These were originally unsolicited. You have just 

said that perhaps the main, if not the exclusive, author was a 

former intelligence agent for our country who rose to the highest 

levels of the CIA and who was given credit for being one of the very 

few who pointed out that the intelligence used by the Bush administration to go to war in Iraq was wrong. 

So I think that, you know, the sharing of information from an old 

friend that I did not take at face value, that I sent on to those who 

were experts is something that, you know, makes sense. But it was 

certainly not in any way the primary source of or the predominant 

understanding that we had of what was going on in Libya and 

what we needed to be doing. 

Chairman GOWDY. Well, Madam Secretary, I am out of time, and 

we will pick this back up the next round. But I will go ahead and 

let you know ahead of time why it is relevant. It is relevant because our Ambassador was asked to read and respond to Sidney 

Blumenthal’s drivel. It was sent to him to read and react to, in 

some instances on the very same day he was asking for security. 

So I think it is eminently fair to ask why Sidney Blumenthal had 

unfettered access to you, Madam Secretary, with whatever he 

wanted to talk about, and there is not a single, solitary email to 

or from you, to or from Ambassador Stevens. I think that is fair, 

and we will take that up after the break. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Would the gentleman yield? Would the gentleman yield? 

Chairman GOWDY. Sure. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, you have made several inaccurate statements 

over the past month as you have tried to defend against multiple 

Republican admissions that the select committee has been wasting 

millions of tax dollars to damage Secretary Clinton’s bid for President. 

On Sunday, you made another inaccurate statement during your 

appearance on ‘‘Face the Nation,’’ and it is being taken up here, 

and this is the relevance. Here is what you said, ‘‘There are other 

folks who may have equities in her emails, and there may be other 

entities who are evaluating her emails. But my interest in them is 

solely making sure that I get everything I’m entitled to so that I 

can do my job. The rest of it—classification, Clinton Foundation, 

you name it—I have zero interest in, which is why you haven’t 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
326 

seen me send a subpoena related to it or interview a single person 

other than Bryan Pagliano, because I need to know that the record 

is complete.’’ 

And I am going back to the truth, the whole truth, and nothing 

but the truth. 

Chairman GOWDY. I am waiting—— 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, let me finish. 

Chairman GOWDY. I am waiting on you. I have been very patient. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. I am coming. Just wait. 

Chairman GOWDY. I am waiting on the inaccurate statement. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. All right. I am getting there. I am getting there. 

Mr. Chairman—— 

Chairman GOWDY. Well, we have to take a break. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Well, it is not going to take long. You took up 

four minutes over, so let me have three. 

Chairman GOWDY. I have let everybody go over, including you, 

Mr. Cummings. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much. 

You issued a subpoena to Sidney Blumenthal on May 19, 2015, 

compelling him to appear for a deposition on June 16, 2015. You 

issued this subpoena unilaterally without giving the select committee members the opportunity to debate or vote on it. You sent 

two armed marshals to serve the subpoena on Mr. Blumenthal’s 

wife and their home without having ever sent him a request to participate voluntarily, which he would have done. 

Then, Mr. Chairman, you personally attended Mr. Blumenthal’s 

deposition, you personally asked him about the Clinton Foundation, and you personally directed your staff to ask questions about 

Clinton, the Clinton Foundation, which they did more than 50 

times. 

Now, these facts directly contradict the statements you made on 

national television—— 

Chairman GOWDY. No, sir. With all due respect, they do not. 

We just heard email after email after email about Libya and 

Benghazi that Sidney Blumenthal sent to the Secretary of State. I 

don’t care if he sent it by Morse code, carrier pigeon, smoke signals. 

The fact that he happened to send it by email is irrelevant. What 

is relevant is that he was sending information to the Secretary of 

State. That is what is relevant. 

Now, with respect to the subpoena, if he had bothered to answer 

the telephone calls of our committee, he wouldn’t have needed a 

subpoena. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Well, would the gentleman yield? 

Chairman GOWDY. I will be happy to, but you need to make sure 

the entire record is correct, Mr. Cummings. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Yes, and that is exactly what I want to do. 

Chairman GOWDY. Well, then go ahead. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. I move that we put into the record the entire 

transcript of Sidney Blumenthal. If we are going to release the 

emails, let’s do the transcript. That way, the world can see it. 

Mr. SCHIFF. I second that motion. 

Chairman GOWDY. Well, we didn’t—— 

Mr. CUMMINGS. The motion has been seconded. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
327 

Chairman GOWDY. Well, we are not going to take that up at a 

hearing. We will take that up—— 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I have consulted with the parliamentarians, and they have informed us that we have a right to a 

recorded vote on that motion. 

You know, you asked for—— 

Chairman GOWDY. Well, I will tell you what. Let’s do this. 

Mr. CUMMINGS [continuing]. The truth, the whole truth, and 

nothing but the truth? Well, that is what we want to have. Let the 

world see it. 

Chairman GOWDY. Why is it that you only want Mr. 

Blumenthal’s transcript released? Why don’t you want the survivors’—— 

Mr. CUMMINGS. I would like to have all of them released. 

Chairman GOWDY. The survivors? Even their names? Do you 

want that? 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Let me tell you something. 

Chairman GOWDY. Do you want that released? 

Mr. CUMMINGS. No, but let me tell you something. Right now—— 

Chairman GOWDY. The only one you have asked for is Sidney 

Blumenthal. That is the only one you have asked for. That and Ms. 

Mills. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Cheryl Mills. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. That is not true. 

Chairman GOWDY. That is two out of 54. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Chairman, I ask for a recorded vote. 

Chairman GOWDY. Now, if you want to ask for some fact witnesses—— 

Mr. CUMMINGS. I ask for a recorded vote on the Blumenthal—you 

said from the beginning, ‘‘We want the truth, the whole truth, and 

nothing but the truth.’’ Why don’t we just put that entire transcript 

out there and let the world see it? What do you have to hide? 

Mr. SCHIFF. These are the only emails that you have released. 

In fairness to Mr. Blumenthal and to the American people, in the 

interest of a complete record, if you are going to release his emails, 

release his transcript where he has a chance to give the context of 

those emails. 

Chairman GOWDY. Well, you keep referring to the Blumenthal 

emails. I would hasten to remind both of you the only reason we 

have Blumenthal emails is because he emailed the Secretary of 

State. Those are her emails. That is why they were released. They 

are not Blumenthal’s emails. 

And she wanted all of her emails released. She has been saying 

since March, ‘‘I want the entire world to see my emails.’’ Well, Sidney Blumenthal’s emails are a part of that. 

So here is what I will do. I will be happy to talk to the parliamentarian, because the parliamentarian told me that your motion 

actually would not be in order for a hearing. 

But at the latest—we will take a vote. And the first week we are 

back, after this week, we will have a business meeting. We can 

take up Mr. Blumenthal’s transcript, we can take up whatever 

other transcripts you want. And while we are there, we can also 

take up the 20-some-odd outstanding discovery requests that we 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
328 

have to different executive branch entities. Why don’t we just take 

all of it up then? 

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, the allegations that have been made 

against him are refuted by his own testimony. In the interest of not 

having—— 

Chairman GOWDY. That is your opinion, Adam. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Well, if you disagree, then release the transcripts. 

Why—— 

Chairman GOWDY. What allegation, Adam? 

Mr. SCHIFF. Why conceal the transcripts? Even if the motion 

were not in order, you have the power to release them. You have 

the power to—— 

Chairman GOWDY. I will tell you why. Because I am not going 

to release one transcript of someone who knows nothing about 

Libya, by his own admission, while people who risk their lives—you 

have no interest in their story getting out. You don’t want the 18 

DS agents. You don’t want the CIA agents. The only transcripts 

you want released are Ms. Mills and Sidney Blumenthal. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, the only—— 

Chairman GOWDY. So we will take all of this up in November. 

Mr. SCHIFF. The only person you were interested in asking about 

during your entire questioning was Sidney Blumenthal. If you are 

so interested in him, release the transcript. You selectively released 

his emails. They are the only witness you have done that for. 

So you are asking why are we only asking for his transcript? It 

is because—— 

Chairman GOWDY. I am going to ask the gentleman from California—— 

Mr. SCHIFF [continuing]. You released his emails. 

Chairman GOWDY [continuing]. To please do a better job of characterizing. These are not Sidney Blumenthal’s emails. These are 

Secretary Clinton’s emails. 

And I will tell you what. If you think you have heard about Sidney Blumenthal so far, wait till the next round. 

With that, we are adjourned. 

[Recess.] 

Chairman GOWDY. The committee will come back to order. 

Madam Secretary, with your indulgence, we will take up one little housekeeping matter. 

The question is on the motion of the gentleman to include the 

document in the record. The chair opposes the motion. 

Those in favor of the motion may signify so by saying aye. 

Those opposed, by no. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Roll call, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Chairman, I ask for a recorded vote. 

Chairman GOWDY. A recorded vote has been requested. The 

chairman’s vote—what? 

Yeah, I am sorry. The secretary will call the roll. 

The CLERK. Mr. Westmoreland? 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Westmoreland votes no. 

Mr. Jordan? 

Mr. JORDAN. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Jordan votes no. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
329 

Mr. Roskam? 

Mr. ROSKAM. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Roskam votes no. 

Mr. Pompeo? 

Mr. POMPEO. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Pompeo votes no. 

Mrs. Roby? 

Mrs. ROBY. No. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Roby votes no. 

Mrs. Brooks? 

Mrs. BROOKS. No. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Brooks votes no. 

Mr. Cummings? 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Yes. 

The CLERK. Mr. Cummings votes yes. 

Mr. Smith? 

Mr. SMITH. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Smith votes aye. 

Mr. Schiff? 

Mr. SCHIFF. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Schiff votes aye. 

Ms. Sanchez? 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Aye. 

The CLERK. Ms. Sanchez votes aye. 

Ms. Duckworth? 

Ms. DUCKWORTH. Aye. 

The CLERK. Ms. Duckworth votes aye. 

Chairman GOWDY. The clerk will report. 

The CLERK. And Mr. Gowdy? 

Chairman GOWDY. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Gowdy votes no. 

Yeas, five; noes, eight. 

Chairman GOWDY. And the motion is not agreed to. 

Madam Secretary—— 

The CLERK. My apologies, sir. It was seven. 

Chairman GOWDY. The motion is still not agreed to. Even South 

Carolina math can figure that out. 

Madam Secretary, before we broke, there was a question asked 

that I thought was a fair question, which is why was I talking 

about Mr. Blumenthal’s emails. I do think that is a fair question. 

And I think it is an equally fair question to ask why you were reading Mr. Blumenthal’s emails. I think both are fair. 

So I want to go to June of 2012, which is an interesting time period to look at. Charlene Lamb was an employee of the State Department, and she sent an email which you may be familiar with— 

it is at tab 56; I am not going to read it, but it is at tab 56—where 

she described Benghazi as a ‘‘soft target,’’ ‘‘attacks on Americans,’’ 

‘‘not staffed adequately.’’ It is a very haunting email to read. It was 

actually 3 months to the day when our four fellow citizens were 

killed. And that is on June the 7th, 2012. 

Also on June the 7th of 2012, your deputy chief of staff, Mr. Jake 

Sullivan, is emailing Ambassador Stevens, asking the Ambassador 

to look at a memo Sidney Blumenthal sent you. And, in fact, Mr. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
330 

Sullivan writes to the Ambassador, ‘‘Chris, checking in with you on 

this report. Any reactions?’’ 

All right. That is on exactly the same day that, I believe, our 

Ambassador’s papers were accepted in Libya. It is a day after an 

IED attack on our compound. And Chris Stevens is being asked to 

read and react to an email by Sidney Blumenthal from your deputy 

chief of staff. 

Now, this is what he is writing on the 7th. This is after he has 

been turned down on a request for more security. This is our Ambassador. ‘‘Appreciate you giving this proposal consideration even 

if the conclusion was not favorable for us. We’d be interested in 

pursuing the other avenue you suggest, high-threat trained agents. 

Best, Chris.’’ 

So I have this contrast in my mind. An ambassador is newly in 

place. It is a day after an attack on our facility. Your deputy chief 

of staff is sending him an email from Sidney Blumenthal asking 

him to take time to read and react to it. And then, to the best of 

my recollection, that is forwarded to you. 

So help us understand how Sidney Blumenthal had that kind of 

access to you, Madam Secretary, but the Ambassador did not. 

Mrs. CLINTON. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, because I think 

that your question does help to clarify matters. 

Chris Stevens emailed regularly with Jake Sullivan, one of my 

closest aides, in the State Department. He could have emailed to 

Mr. Sullivan, knowing that it would’ve been immediately responded 

to, on any issue that was of concern to him, and he did not raise 

issues about security on that day or other days. 

And I think it’s important to recognize that when an ambassador 

is at post overseas, especially one as experienced a diplomat as 

Chris Stevens, he knows where to pull the levers, where to go for 

information, where to register concerns. And I think he did exactly 

as one might have expected. He dealt with security issues through 

dealing with the security professionals, who were the ones making 

the assessments. And I think that Ambassador Stevens understood 

completely that that’s where the experts were and that’s where 

anything he requested or anything he was questioning should be 

directed. 

Chairman GOWDY. Speaking of experts, who was Victoria 

Nuland? 

Mrs. CLINTON. A very experienced diplomat. She served as our 

Ambassador to NATO, appointed by President George W. Bush. 

She served as one of the advisers, as a Foreign Service officer delegated to the White House for Vice President Cheney. She served 

as the spokesperson for the State Department during my tenure. 

And she is currently the Assistant Secretary for Europe under Secretary Kerry. 

Chairman GOWDY. She wrote this to the Ambassador on June the 

13th, 2012. That is a week after the facility was attacked. It is only 

a handful of days after he was turned down on a request, specific 

request, for more security. 

‘‘Chris, I know you have your hands full, but we’d like your advice about public messaging on the spate of violence in Libya over 

the past 10 days.’’ 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
331 

So she is asking him for help with public messaging. Jake Sullivan—which is the other half of the question that I don’t think we 

got to. I understand that Chris Stevens was a rule-follower. I understand that. I’ve got no qualms. 

My question was actually not why Chris Stevens didn’t contact 

you, but why did Jake Sullivan send Chris Stevens a Sidney 

Blumenthal email to read and react to on the day after the facility 

was attacked, the same day he was denied a request for more security, and instead of email traffic back and forth about security, it 

is read and react to a Blumenthal email? 

Mrs. CLINTON. Well, I think any ambassador, if one were sitting 

before the committee, would say that they handled a lot of incoming information and requests. Some of it was about what was happening in country; some of it was about what was happening back 

in the United States. 

And Chris felt strongly that the United States needed to remain 

in and committed to Libya. So he was concerned that there might 

be a feeling on the part of some, either in the State Department 

or elsewhere in the government, that we shouldn’t be in Libya. And 

he was adamantly in favor of us staying in Libya. 

So part of what the discussion with him and Jake Sullivan and 

others was, you know, how do we best convey what the stakes the 

United States has in staying involved in Libya would be. And I 

thought that was, you know, very much in keeping with both his 

assessment and his experience. 

Chairman GOWDY. Well, I appreciate your perspective, Madam 

Secretary. Let me share with you my perspective. 

And if you need to take time to read a note, I am happy to pause. 

Mrs. CLINTON. No. I’m just being reminded, which I think is important, that—you know, remember, Chris spent the vast majority 

of his time in Tripoli, not in Benghazi. So a lot of what he was 

looking at is how you deal with not only those in authority positions in Libya who were based in Tripoli at that time but also representatives of other governments and the like. 

And I think it is fair to say that anytime you’re trying to figure 

out what’s the best argument to make, especially if you’re someone 

like Chris Stevens trying to put together and make the best argument about why the United States should remain committed to 

Libya and others as well, he’s going to engage in conversations 

about that. 

Chairman GOWDY. Well, with respect, Madam Secretary, no matter what city he was in in Libya, having to stop and provide public 

messaging advice to your press shop and having to read and respond to an email sent by Sidney Blumenthal—it doesn’t matter 

what town you are in. He needed security help. He didn’t need help 

messaging the violence. He needed help actually with the violence. 

Mrs. CLINTON. Well—— 

Chairman GOWDY. You have said several times this morning that 

you had people and processes in place. And I want to ask you about 

an email that was sent to you by another one of your aides, Ms. 

Huma Abedin. That would be exhibit No. 70 in your folder. 

She emailed you that the Libyan people needed medicine, gasoline, diesel, and milk. Do you know how long it took you to respond 

to that email? 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
332 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 425 98884.266
333 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 426 98884.267
334 

Mrs. CLINTON. Well, I responded to it very quickly. 

Chairman GOWDY. Yeah, four minutes. 

My question, and I think it is a fair one, is: The Libyan people 

had their needs responded to directly by you in four minutes, and 

there is no record of our security folks ever even making it to your 

inbox. So if you had people and processes in place for security, did 

you not also have people and processes in place for medicine, gasoline, diesel, milk? 

Mrs. CLINTON. You know, Mr. Chairman, I’ve said it before, and 

I will say it again. I’ll say it as many times as is necessary to respond. 

Chris Stevens communicated regularly with the members of my 

staff. He did not raise security with the members of my staff. I 

communicated with him about certain issues. He did not raise security with me. He raised security with the security professionals. 

Now, I know that’s not the answer you want to hear, because it’s 

being asked in many different ways by committee members, but 

those are the facts, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman GOWDY. No, I—— 

Mrs. CLINTON. Ambassadors in the field are engaged in many different tasks. They are basically our chief representative of the 

President of the United States, so they deal with everything from, 

you know, foreign aid to security to dealing with the personal requests for visas that come from people in the country they are assigned to. 

And Chris Stevens had regular contact with members of my 

staff, and he did not raise security issues. 

Now, some of it may have been because, despite what was implied earlier, there was a good back-and-forth about security. And 

many of the requests that came from Embassy Tripoli, both for 

Tripoli and for Benghazi, were acted on affirmatively. Others were 

not. 

That is what an ambassador, especially a diplomat as experienced as Chris Stevens, would expect, that it would be unlikely to 

be able to get every one of your requests immediately answered 

positively. 

So, yes, he had regular contact with my aides; he did not raise 

security with me. And the security questions and requests were 

handled by the security professionals. 

Chairman GOWDY. Madam Secretary, with all due respect, those 

are two separate issues. Who Chris Stevens had access to is one 

issue. Who had access to you and for what is another issue. 

Because you have said you had people and processes in place. 

You also have people and processes in place for people who want 

to send you meaningless political advice. You also have people and 

processes in place for people who want to inquire about milk and 

diesel fuel and gasoline. You also have people and processes in 

place for people who want to provide insults towards folks you 

work with in the administration. 

All of that made it directly into your inbox, Madam Secretary. 

That is my question. My question is, how did you decide when to 

invoke people and process and who just got to come straight to 

you? Because it looked like certain things got straight to your 

inbox, and the requests for more security did not. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
335 

And while you are answering that, I want to inform and instruct 

why I am asking it. You have mentioned the ARB on a number of 

occasions again today. This was not the first ARB. We had one 

after Kenya and Tanzania. And that ARB could not have been 

more specific: The Secretary of State should personally review the 

security situation of our embassy facilities. That ARB put the responsibility squarely on you. 

So, with respect to that previous ARB recommendation and, in 

contrast, what did make your inbox versus what did not, did you 

personally review our security situation, as the previous ARB required? 

Mrs. CLINTON. Well, let me see if I can answer the many parts 

of your question, Mr. Chairman. 

Yes, personal email came to my personal account. Work-related 

email did, as well. And I also relied on a number of my aides and 

staff members, as well as experienced Foreign Service officers and 

civil servants, who were similarly engaged in gathering information 

and sharing it. 

And, as I said and I will repeat, Chris Stevens communicated 

with a number of people that I worked with on a daily basis in the 

State Department. So far as I know, he did not raise any issue of 

security with any of those people. He raised it where he knew it 

would be properly addressed. If he had raised it with me, I would 

be here telling you he had. He did not. 

And so I think it’s important to try to separate out the various 

elements of your question, Mr. Chairman, and I will do my best to 

continue to try to answer your questions. 

But I have said before and I will repeat again: Sid Blumenthal 

was not my adviser, official or unofficial, about Libya. He was not 

involved in any of the meetings, conversations, other efforts to obtain information in order to act on it. 

On occasion, I did forward what he sent me to make sure that 

it was in the mix so, if it was useful, it could be put to use. And 

I believe in response to the email you pointed out originally from 

Ambassador Stevens, he actually said it rang true and it was worth 

looking into. 

So I think it’s important that we separate out the fact that Mr. 

Blumenthal was not my adviser. He was not an official of the 

United States Government. He was not passing on official information. He, like a number of my friends, would hand me a newspaper 

article, would buttonhole me at a reception and say, what about 

this, or what about that, were trying to be helpful. Some of it was. 

A lot of it wasn’t. 

Chairman GOWDY. The chair will now recognize the gentlelady 

from California, Ms. Sanchez. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Thank you. 

Secretary Clinton, I listened very carefully when Chairman 

Gowdy was questioning you in the first round of questioning. I 

have to say I was kind of surprised. 

We waited more than a year to finally get you up here to testify. We spent almost $5 million, and we interviewed about 54 witnesses. And when the chairman finally got his chance to question 

you, he asked you over—he quibbled, actually, over the definition 

of the word ‘‘unsolicited.’’ 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
336 

As if that wasn’t bad enough, then he doubled down on this idea 

that Sidney Blumenthal was your primary adviser on Libya, a 

claim that we heard The Washington Post awarded four Pinocchios. 

He said on Sunday on national television that he had zero interest in the Clinton Foundation and other topics, but then he just 

spent his full time, the full questioning time in the first round, asking you about the Clinton Foundation, Media Matters, and other 

topics that don’t really have anything to do with the attacks that 

occurred in Benghazi. 

And my own sense of incredulity was, really? Really? Is this why 

we have asked you to come? To testify about that? 

The overwhelming sense that I get from the Republican side of 

the aisle is they seem to be arguing somehow that Sidney 

Blumenthal had access to you while Ambassador Stevens did not. 

Do you think that that is an accurate statement? 

Mrs. CLINTON. Of course not, Congresswoman. You know, you 

didn’t need my email address to get my attention. 

In fact, most of the work I did, as I said this morning, had nothing to do with my emails. It had to do with the kind of meetings 

and materials that were provided to me through those who were 

responsible for making decisions on a whole range of issues. 

And, as I just told the chairman, if Ambassador Stevens had 

grave concerns that he wanted raised with me, he certainly knew 

how to do that. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. He could speak to your office or your staff— 

Mrs. CLINTON. Absolutely. 

Ms. SANCHEZ [continuing]. Or you directly on the telephone? 

Mrs. CLINTON. Absolutely. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Did he ever ask you for your personal email address and you turned him down, you shot him down—— 

Mrs. CLINTON. No. He did not. 

Ms. SANCHEZ [continuing]. Said, ‘‘You can’t email me’’? 

Mrs. CLINTON. Huh-uh. Huh-uh. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. The other thing that I am hearing from the other 

side of the aisle is they are arguing that, you know, security was, 

you know, sort of decomposing in eastern Libya and that no security improvements were ever made to the Benghazi outpost. 

That is not a true statement, is it? 

Mrs. CLINTON. No, it is not. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. In fact, there were many security enhancements 

that were asked for that were actually made, although there were 

other requests that were made that were not fulfilled. Is that correct? 

Mrs. CLINTON. That’s correct. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Okay. 

The other line of questioning that sort of surprises me is that, 

over the course of this investigation, Republicans have repeatedly 

asked why the U.S. was still in Benghazi on the night of the attacks. 

During the select committee’s first hearing, which was more than 

a year ago, the chairman posed the following question: ‘‘We know 

the risk of being in Benghazi. Can you tell us what our policy was 

in Libya that overcame those risks? In other words, why were we 

there?’’ 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
337 

And the Accountability Review Board had already answered that 

question. It explained that Benghazi was the largest city and historical power center in eastern Libya. It further went on to say, 

‘‘Although the rebel-led Transitional National Council declared that 

Tripoli would continue to be the capital of post-Qadhafi Libya, 

many of the influential players in the TNC remained based in 

Benghazi.’’ 

And the ARB went on to explain that Ambassador Stevens advocated for a U.S. presence in Benghazi, and his status as the leading 

U.S. Government advocate on Libya policy and his expertise on 

Benghazi, in particular, caused Washington to give unusual deference to his judgments. 

Secretary Clinton, do you agree? Was Ambassador Stevens a 

leading expert on Libya policy? And did you also give his opinions 

a lot of weight and respect? 

Mrs. CLINTON. Yes, I did, Congresswoman. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. And do you recall Ambassador Stevens advocating 

from the ground up for continued U.S. presence specifically in 

Benghazi? 

Mrs. CLINTON. Yes, he did. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. In fact, Ambassador Stevens’ emails, many of 

which this committee has had for more than a year, confirm what 

you just stated. 

Mr. CHAIRMAN, I would ask unanimous consent to enter this document into the record. And it is being passed out to the members 

of the committee. 

Chairman GOWDY. Without objection. 

[The information follows:] 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
338 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 436 here 98884.268
339 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 437 here 98884.269
340 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Secretary Clinton, I understand this email is not 

one that you have seen before, as it was not addressed or sent to 

you. Is that correct? 

Mrs. CLINTON. That’s correct. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. In the email before you, then-Special Envoy Stevens wrote this proposal for continued presence in Benghazi at Embassy Tripoli, as Embassy Tripoli was reopened following the fall 

of Qadhafi. He suggested two potential models. Option A was a 

slimmed-down compound, and option B was a virtual presence with 

zero full-time State Department staff in Benghazi. 

Special Envoy Stevens sent this email to Gene Cretz, then the 

Ambassador to Libya; his deputy chief of mission; and the Director 

of the Office of Maghreb Affairs. At the time, these career diplomats had a combined 83 years of Foreign Service experience. 

Would the recommendation of this team be given a fair amount 

of weight within the Department? 

Mrs. CLINTON. Yes, it would. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. And is that the way that it should work, that the 

views of experienced diplomats should count in decisionmaking? 

Mrs. CLINTON. They certainly did to me, and I think that should 

be the practice. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. In the same email, Special Envoy Stevens states, 

‘‘But my personal recommendation would be option A,’’ which was 

the option for a slimmed-down compound. He then notes a few of 

his key rationales for wanting to stay. 

In an earlier September 6, 2011, email advocating for a continued Benghazi presence, Special Envoy Stevens provided more reasons, including the opportunity to, ‘‘monitor political trends and 

public sentiment regarding the new Libya. The revolution began in 

eastern Libya, and the view of these 2 million inhabitants will certainly influence events going forward.’’ 

Secretary Clinton, do you agree with Ambassador Stevens’ view 

that there were important reasons to have a presence in Benghazi 

despite the risks? 

Mrs. CLINTON. Yes, I do. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Other documents show that Ambassador Stevens 

continued to advocate for a continued U.S. presence once he became Ambassador to Libya. In fact, at the end of August, just two 

weeks before the attacks, he was working on a proposal for a permanent presence. 

As that proposal explained, ‘‘A permanent branch office in 

Benghazi to provide a permanent platform to protect U.S. national 

security interests in the region and to promote a stronger, 

healthier, and more vibrant bilateral relationship with the new free 

and democratic Libya.’’ 

While Ambassador Stevens took seriously the significant security 

incidents in Benghazi that occurred in June, he never decided that 

the risk outweighed the benefit, and he never recommended closing 

the post in Benghazi. He worked with his counterparts to try to 

manage that risk as best they could. 

In its report, the Benghazi Accountability Review Board found, 

‘‘The total elimination of risk is a nonstarter for U.S. diplomacy 

given the need for the U.S. Government to be present in places 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
341 

where stability and security are often most profoundly lacking and 

host-government support is sometimes minimal to nonexistent.’’ 

Secretary Clinton, this is such a difficult issue, the balancing of 

interests. From your perspective as a former Senator and Secretary 

of State, how do you best ensure that we are striking the right balance going forward? 

Mrs. CLINTON. Well, Congresswoman, thank you for that question, because I do think that’s what we should be talking about. 

And several of you have posed similar questions. 

I think you do start with the best expert and experienced advice 

that you can get from across our government. And, as you rightly 

point out, Chris Stevens never recommended that we close 

Benghazi. He advocated for keeping Benghazi open and, as you 

rightly refer to this email, for a particular configuration that would 

fulfill the needs of our country being represented there. 

Obviously, you have to constantly do this balancing act that I referred to earlier today. And most times we get it right. In fact, the 

vast majority of times we get it right. 

With Benghazi, the CIA did not have any plans to close their facility. The opinion of those with the greatest understanding of our 

mission, our diplomatic mission, in Benghazi was exactly the same, 

that we should not close down, we should not leave Benghazi. 

And it’s, you know, obviously something that you have to be constantly evaluating in all of these difficult, unstable spots around 

the world. 

But I appreciate your bringing to the committee’s attention, you 

know, the strong opinion of the man who knew the most and was 

on the ground and who understood what we were trying to achieve 

in Benghazi, Ambassador Stevens. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. And was it your understanding that he certainly 

understood the risk of being there? 

Mrs. CLINTON. He definitely understood the risks. Yes. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Thank you. 

I yield back. 

Chairman GOWDY. The gentlelady yields back. 

The chair will now recognize the gentlelady from Indiana, Mrs. 

Brooks. 

Mrs. BROOKS. Secretary Clinton, I would like to ask you a bit 

about your decisionmaking and the discussions you had as it related to how long the Benghazi mission itself was going to last. 

I am putting up a map just because most of us really don’t know 

much about Libya, don’t know much about the geography of Libya. 

And as we have talked about these various communities, I don’t 

think most people really realized. 

So I want to share with you that we know from my last round 

that Chris Stevens went into Benghazi in April of 2011, and I want 

to talk to you about what happened the rest of that year. And just 

because there was a lot going on, I thought it would be helpful to 

have this map. 

So, by mid-July, our government formally recognized the TNC as 

the official Government of Libya, replacing the Qadhafi regime. 

And TNC was based in Benghazi at that time. And then, in August, after the Qadhafi government fell, Qadhafi went over into— 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
342 

he left Tripoli, where Qadhafi had been headquartered, and he 

went into hiding in Sirte. 

Now, once that happened, the TNC moved their Benghazi headquarters over to Tripoli. And then, in September, we reopened our 

embassy in Tripoli, and Ambassador Cretz returned—he had been 

evacuated previously—and Chris Stevens stayed in Benghazi. 

Does that sound like an accurate summary of the summer of 

2011? 

Mrs. CLINTON. It does sound accurate, except I’m not sure exactly 

the duration of Ambassador Stevens’ presence in Benghazi during 

those months. 

Mrs. BROOKS. Well, that leads to my next question. What was 

your plan for the mission in the fall of 2011 and going forward? 

What were the discussions you had, and who did you have those 

discussions with, about the mission of Benghazi going forward in 

2011? 

Mrs. CLINTON. Well, as you may have heard, Congresswoman, 

the email that Congresswoman Sanchez introduced into the record 

was from the fall of 2011, and there was quite a discussion going 

on between officials in the State Department, in the intelligence 

community, in both Washington and Libya, about the path forward. 

The Transitional National Council had been based in Benghazi, 

and there was a dispute even within the Libyans themselves as to 

whether they would split the government, whether the government 

would be located predominantly but not exclusively in Tripoli, or, 

as some were hoping, predominantly but not exclusively in 

Benghazi. So this was all a very live subject that was being debated, both in Libya and with respect to what our response would 

be in Washington. 

So we, at Chris Stevens’ strong urging and that of other of our 

experienced diplomats, wanted to maintain a presence in Benghazi 

in some form. We reopened our embassy in Tripoli, which had been 

the historical, certainly, under Qadhafi. 

But this was a constant discussion about what we should do, 

when and where. And I think that’s why this email from Chris Stevens about his recommendations is so informative. 

Mrs. BROOKS. Well, and thank you, and I will get to that in just 

a moment. But I have to ask you, I assume that your chief of staff, 

Cheryl Mills, was intimately involved in these discussions with you 

and with your top staff. She is one of your staff, as you were referring to them. Is that right? 

Mrs. CLINTON. Well, she covered a broad range of issues. I’m 

sure she was involved in some of the discussions, but she had 

many other responsibilities, so I can’t say all of them. 

Mrs. BROOKS. I would like to refer you to an update on Tripoli 

operations provided to Cheryl Mills on September 14. And at the 

top of that two-page memo, ‘‘Assumptions for Benghazi in September were gradual winding down of operations over the next six 

months. Transition to Tripoli only by January 2012. No consulate.’’ 

‘‘No consulate’’ meant no consulate in Benghazi. This was in September. Would that be fair and accurate? 

And were you in that briefing with Ms. Mills, or did she brief you 

about the fact that in September the game plan was to shut down 

Benghazi? 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
343 

Mrs. CLINTON. Well, I think you have to look at that in context, 

Congresswoman. There was not an active plan for a consulate in 

Benghazi at any point during this period. That is not what the 

compound in Benghazi was. It was a temporary facility placed 

there to help us make a determination as to what we would need 

going forward in Benghazi. There was—— 

Mrs. BROOKS. And excuse me, Madam Secretary—— 

Mrs. CLINTON. There was a strong argument that Chris Stevens 

and others made that they hoped eventually there might be a consulate. But there was never an agreement to have a consulate. 

Mrs. BROOKS. And, in fact, if it had been deemed a consulate, it 

would have had a different level of security, is that correct, than 

a temporary mission compound? Isn’t that—— 

Mrs. CLINTON. Well, we have—— 

Mrs. BROOKS. Isn’t that correct, that consulates have certain levels of security? There are standards, there are protocols. When it 

is a consulate, it gets a certain level of security. 

Mrs. CLINTON. That is the hoped-for outcome. That is not what 

happens in the very beginning in many places, especially the 

hotspots and the conflict areas where a consulate is stood up. 

Mrs. BROOKS. Can you talk with me about the decision, then— 

there is a briefing with respect to—after the closing, rather, of the 

consulate in Benghazi by January of 2012. We know it didn’t close. 

It did not close. 

You went to Tripoli in October of 2011. Ambassador Cretz was 

still there. How about Chris Stevens? Did Chris Stevens come over 

from Benghazi to see you when you went for that big trip in October 2011? 

Mrs. CLINTON. I don’t recall. I don’t recall if he did or not. This 

was about Ambassador Cretz, and Ambassador Cretz was the person that we were meeting with at that time. 

Mrs. BROOKS. What was your purpose for meeting with Ambassador Cretz if Chris Stevens was your expert in Libya? 

Mrs. CLINTON. Ambassador Cretz was an expert, as well. Ambassador Cretz was our ambassador. You remember, as I mentioned 

to you before, he had been our ambassador, and then because he 

reported very accurately about what he observed regarding Qadhafi 

and Qadhafi’s henchmen, when WikiLeaks disclosed internal U.S. 

Government cables and Gene Cretz’s cables were publicized, talking very critically about Qadhafi, he was then subjected to threats, 

and then we took him out. We did not close the embassy at that 

time. 

So he had returned to finish out his time, and we were in the 

process of moving him to another assignment and nominating 

Chris Stevens to replace him. 

Mrs. BROOKS. But during that one trip to Libya, you didn’t talk 

to Chris Stevens, best of your recollection, during that time. 

Mrs. CLINTON. While I was in Libya, I don’t recall that. Of 

course, we consulted with him with respect to planning the trip, as 

to who we would meet with, what we would ask for. 

We were trying very hard to get the people in positions of authority at that time in Libya to let us work with them on everything from border security to collecting weapons and trying to disVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:25 Apr 05, 2016 Jkt 098884 PO 00000 Frm 00345 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\B884P2.XXX B884P2

srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
344 

arm the militias. We had a lot of business we were doing with 

them. 

Mrs. BROOKS. So, going back to Ms. Sanchez’s email with respect 

from John Stevens to Ms. Polaschik, it talks about option A, as you 

pointed out, slimming down the compound. And so he weighed in— 

in October, he was weighing in on whether or not the compound 

should stay open. 

But I would like to direct your attention to an email that is at 

tab 4, dated December 15 from Chris Stevens. 

And I might add for the record, we do not, still to this day, have 

all of Chris Stevens’ emails. We received 1,300 more this week. We 

received most of them last week. We don’t have the universe yet 

of Ambassador Stevens’ emails. 

But he emailed to a reporting officer, who we know was in 

Benghazi still. He wrote, ‘‘Interesting. Has security improved in 

Benghazi in recent weeks? Also curious what you guys decided to 

do regarding future of the compound.’’ 

He was in Washington, D.C., or back in the States during that 

time. And, in December, Ambassador Stevens, your soon-to-be Ambassador, didn’t know what was going to happen with the compound in Benghazi? How is that possible? 

Mrs. CLINTON. Well, Congresswoman, one of the great attributes 

that Chris Stevens had was a really good sense of humor. And I 

just see him smiling as he’s typing this, because it is clearly in response to the email down below talking about picking up a few, 

‘‘fire-sale items from the Brits.’’ 

Mrs. BROOKS. Sure. Those fire-sale items, by the way, are barricades. 

Mrs. CLINTON. That’s right. 

Mrs. BROOKS. They are additional—— 

Mrs. CLINTON. That’s right. 

Mrs. BROOKS [continuing]. Requests for security—— 

Mrs. CLINTON. That’s right. 

Mrs. BROOKS [continuing]. For the compound. That is what that 

fire sale was, because we weren’t providing enough physical security for the compound. Isn’t that right? So they are picking up a 

fire sale because other consulates are pulling out, other countries 

are pulling out. 

Mrs. CLINTON. Well, I thought it showed—— 

Mrs. BROOKS. I don’t think that is very funny. 

Mrs. CLINTON [continuing]. Their entrepreneurial spirit, Congresswoman. 

Mrs. BROOKS. Absolutely. 

Mrs. CLINTON. And I applaud them for doing so. 

We did respond to a number of the security requests, the physical security requests. The posters that were up earlier this morning were only about the number of Diplomatic Security personnel. 

You’re talking about physical barriers, physical additions to the 

compound. There were quite a few of those that were undertaken. 

Mrs. BROOKS. But how is it that Mr. Stevens did not know in December whether or not the compound was going to remain open? 

Mrs. CLINTON. Well—— 

Mrs. BROOKS. Or do you think that was a joke he was making? 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
345 

Mrs. CLINTON. Well, I think that, if it were not an example of 

his sense of humor, it was also as part of the ongoing discussion 

about Mission Benghazi’s future, which he went to great lengths to 

describe what he thought should be done. You know, a lot of it was 

trying to decide, could we afford it, could we maintain it, what did 

we need to have there. 

So, yes, there was an ongoing discussion. And I think he knew 

he was going to be in line to go to Tripoli, and he wanted to know 

exactly what the decision was going to be about the compound. He 

had weighed in not only in that email but in numerous discussions 

with his colleagues back at the State Department. 

Mrs. BROOKS. And finally, Secretary Clinton, we know that the 

compound, the Benghazi Mission, was extended for yet another 

year. Because, that same month, your Benghazi point person here 

in Washington, Jeff Feltman, sent a memo wanting to extend 

Benghazi through 2012, and he sent it to Under Secretary Patrick 

Kennedy, who approved it—another high-level official who, by the 

way, for the record, State Department has given us none of Under 

Secretary Patrick Kennedy’s emails yet. Same with Jeffrey 

Feltman. Very high-level officials within the State Department. 

Are you familiar with that memo, sent on December 27, entitled 

‘‘Future of Operations in Benghazi, Libya’’? Are you familiar with 

that memo? 

Mrs. CLINTON. Well—— 

Mrs. BROOKS. And if so, did Assistant Secretary Feltman discuss 

that memo with you at the time and discuss extending the mission 

in Benghazi in December of 2011? 

Mrs. CLINTON. I’m familiar that there was an ongoing discussion 

about the future of the mission in Benghazi—— 

Mrs. BROOKS. A discussion between whom, ma’am? Who were 

the—— 

Mrs. CLINTON. Between all of the relevant officials in the State 

Department. 

Mrs. BROOKS. Help me with understanding—— 

Mrs. CLINTON. Well, Jeff Feltman was one of them. 

Mrs. BROOKS. Okay. Who else? 

Mrs. CLINTON. Obviously, Chris Stevens was one of them. But 

there were many others who had information and expertise to add 

to it. 

And there was a recommendation that Benghazi be continued 

through 2012 as part of the continuing evaluation of whether or 

what we wanted to have on a more permanent basis in Benghazi. 

Mrs. BROOKS. And do you recall, were you in those discussions? 

Were you specifically in those meetings? You have shared that you 

didn’t do a lot by email, that you had more meetings and briefings. 

Were you in those meetings about extending Benghazi through the 

end of the year? 

Mrs. CLINTON. There were certainly meetings in which I was advised about the process being undertaken as to determine whether 

Benghazi should be extended. So, yes, I was aware of the process 

that was ongoing, and I was kept up to date about it. 

Mrs. BROOKS. And were there any minutes or any briefings—— 

Chairman GOWDY. The gentlelady’s time has expired. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
346 

The chair would now recognize the gentleman from Washington, 

Mr. Smith. 

Mr. SMITH. Yeah, I just want to clarify a couple of points. 

First of all, Ambassador Stevens had access to you, without question. 

Mrs. CLINTON. Yes, he did. 

Mr. SMITH. In fact, a former—I don’t have the name in front of 

me, but an ambassador in Russia said that, you know, he always 

had access to you, always had constant communication with you, 

never had your email address. 

Mrs. CLINTON. That’s right. 

Mr. SMITH. I would hope that ambassadors would have more direct and immediate lines of communication, and Ambassador Stevens certainly did, correct? 

Mrs. CLINTON. Yes. 

Mr. SMITH. And, also, did Ambassador Stevens ever advocate either leaving Libya or abandoning Benghazi? 

Mrs. CLINTON. To the contrary, Congressman. He was a very 

strong advocate for staying in Libya, including in Benghazi. 

Mr. SMITH. And I think, you know, what we have learned here 

is, well, nothing, frankly, that we didn’t know already. The security 

situation in Libya was dangerous—— 

Mrs. CLINTON. Right. 

Mr. SMITH [continuing]. Without question. Would you say that 

Ambassador Stevens was unaware of any aspect of that? 

Mrs. CLINTON. No, I would not. I think he was very aware. 

Mr. SMITH. So he knew the security situation in Libya quite 

well? 

Mrs. CLINTON. That’s right. 

Mr. SMITH. And yet—and, again, I want to be clear on this. In 

his communications with you—and he had many, even if he didn’t 

have your email address—did he ever say—you know, did he raise 

the security issue directly with you? 

Mrs. CLINTON. No, he did not. 

Mr. SMITH. And, you know, and then the question—you know, 

obviously, he chose to go to Benghazi. He, as you have described 

earlier, as, gosh, all across the world today, diplomats are weighing 

the risks and the benefits of a lot of dangerous places, and he had 

to do that. 

Mrs. CLINTON. Yes. 

Mr. SMITH. And he chose to go to Benghazi. 

Mrs. CLINTON. He did. And, Congressman, ambassadors in the 

countries they are representing the United States in do not, as a 

practice, ask permission from the State Department to travel in the 

country where they are stationed. 

Mr. SMITH. And as well they should not. They need to be in 

charge of their country. 

I’d also point out, on the question of emails and which ones 

you’ve received and haven’t received. Unfortunately, the State Department, which has been spending an enormous amount of time 

producing documents for this committee, cannot produce thousands 

of emails at the drop of a hat. And the committee chose to 

prioritize all your emails, but also Ms. Abedin’s emails, Cheryl 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
347 

Mills’ emails, basically Sidney Blumenthal’s emails to you; they 

chose to prioritize those emails over the others. 

So the State Department is trying to get this information. But 

it is a question of the priorities of the committee, which brings me 

to the last point I’ll make, and I won’t take the full 10 minutes 

here, you know. There are a lot of—a lot of accusations have been 

made back and forth about things that have been said that were 

or were not true. I think the one thing that was said in this hearing that is clearly the furthest thing from the truth is that this is 

not a prosecution. If you listen to the other side, this is unquestionably exactly that, a prosecution. I mean, I’d ask viewers to just go 

back and listen to Chairman Gowdy’s questioning of you before the 

first break and tell me that that’s not a prosecution. 

And I think, again, I don’t know if shame, embarrassment, whatever word you wish to choose, it shouldn’t be a prosecution. You 

know, we have the former Secretary of State here. We should be 

genuinely trying to inquire about how we can gather more information. 

Now, the only interesting facts that seem to be brought up are 

always referenced back to the ARB, which just points up the fact 

that the information that we need—and, again, I really want to 

emphasize, this was a serious, serious matter for the United 

States. A loss of four Americans is something we need to take incredibly seriously and investigate, and we did. And the information 

that we found out, as you pointed out, was not always flattering. 

And there was no question that mistakes were made. And we hopefully learned from them, but that was investigated, so what is the 

purpose of this committee? 

And, when you look at the emails they request, when you look 

at the questioning, the purpose of this committee is to prosecute 

you, and there’ll be time enough for that in the next year, you 

know, and people will do it. We don’t need to spend $4.7 million 

and 17 months to simply prosecute you. Look, the security situation was well-known in Libya. The security situation in Pakistan 

is well-known. I visited the Embassy in Yemen in 2009 about a 

month after someone had shot a rocket-propelled grenade through 

the front door. The security situation there is incredibly serious, as 

well as it is in a whole lot of other places, and those are difficult 

decisions, but the effort here today seems to be that somehow you 

personally decided not to do your job in Libya. Okay? You were apparently the advocate of the policy in Libya. Apparently passionate 

about it. But not passionate enough to care about the security situation in Libya. 

And Chris Stevens, incredibly passionate about Libya, wanted to 

make that country work. Now, it has proven very, very difficult. Do 

we want to go back to Muammar Qadhafi in charge? I don’t think 

so. And just—sorry, to make a policy point as long as I have a few 

minutes—you know, it’s interesting to juxtapose Libya with Syria. 

Because just as many of my Republican colleagues are ripping 

apart the Obama administration and all of those involved for 

choosing to remove Qadhafi, they are ripping apart the Obama administration and all the current officials for choosing not to get involved in Syria. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
348 

What that points up, frankly, is the difficulty of the job that you 

had. And I thank you for taking it. I’m not sure I would be so bold. 

It is a very, very dangerous world. Bad things are going to happen. 

And what we are witnessing today is if bad things happen, you will 

be dragged out over months and months and months in this partisan atmosphere. And that is very, very unfortunate. This needed 

to be investigated. 

I mean, you know, 9/11, we didn’t investigate 9/11—you know, 9/ 

11/2001, just to specify—with the length and depth that we have 

chose to investigate this. 

So, again, I come back to the central point of the central problem 

with this committee: it is a prosecution. It is a partisan exercise. 

It is not trying to investigate and find out the truth. And, again, 

we are now, do a little quick math here, five hours into it; count 

the break, maybe four hours into it. We have learned nothing substantively new about what happened in Benghazi. Very serious 

things happened. They were investigated. They were reported. Mistakes were made. They were reported. But this committee in all 

that time and effort has unearthed nothing. Instead, they want to 

prosecute you and, you know, rip apart your every word, your every 

email. Two staffers five levels down from you who said something 

bad about you? I mean, my goodness, I hope I don’t ever have to 

undergo that kind of scrutiny. I would not survive it, and I don’t 

think many would. 

So, you know, I hope in the hours that we have left to do this, 

that we will try to circle back to learning something new, to figuring out how we can best strike that balance that you described 

of being present in the world but also trying to keep our people 

safe. Throughout the history of the country—my aunt was actually 

a Foreign Service officer way back when—and we have lost many 

diplomats, and she tells me about it all the time. And, you know, 

it’s a difficult balance. We need to get back to that. If we can learn 

something new about what happened in Benghazi, I think that 

might be helpful. But right now this committee is not doing a service to the four people who died or their families or to preventing 

any of these future incidents from happening. 

So I thank you for testifying. I thank you for your leadership and 

your willingness to do a very, very difficult job. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. SMITH. And, with that, I yield the remainder of my time to 

the ranking member, Mr. Cummings. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Secretary, a few—maybe an hour so ago, 

we were talking about the Diplomatic Security folks on the night 

of the incident, and you looked like you—it appeared that you 

wanted to say a little bit more about that and what they—speaking 

of that, the incident. Would you like to elaborate? 

Mrs. CLINTON. Well, thank you, Congressman. 

You know, I don’t want anything that is said to me or about me 

to take away from the heroic efforts that the Diplomatic Security 

officers exhibited. The five men who were with Chris and Sean 

Smith risked their lives repeatedly and were themselves under 

grave threat. I wanted to point out that even when we try to get 

it right, which we do try, sometimes there are unintended consequences, and there is an example out of this tragedy. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
349 

Coming out of previous assessments of attacks on facilities, we 

now have safe havens, safe rooms in facilities, particularly residences. The Diplomatic Security officers were able to get both Chris 

and Sean into that safe room. Of course, the idea behind the safe 

room, why security experts advocated for them, was to protect our 

civilians, our diplomats from attacks like the one that was occurring. The attackers used diesel fuel to set the compound on fire, 

and the safe room was anything but safe. 

I’m sure the committee members know that neither Chris Stevens nor Sean Smith died from injuries directly inflicted by the 

attackers. They both died of smoke inhalation. And one of the recommendations in this ARB report is that when we have safe havens, we need to have equipment that will enable people that are 

safe within them to withstand what happened in Benghazi. 

The lead Diplomatic Security officer who was with both the Ambassador and Sean Smith endeavored to lead them to safety 

through a wall of black smoke. He wanted to get them out of the 

compound interior up to the roof, where they could be out of the 

fire and also out of the attackers’ assault. He himself nearly died 

of smoke inhalation. When he looked around to make sure that 

both Sean and Chris were with him, he couldn’t find them. Rather 

than proceeding and saving himself, which would be a natural 

human instinct, he turned back into that black diesel smoke desperately trying to find Chris and Sean. He did find Sean, and Sean 

had succumbed to smoke inhalation, and the Diplomatic Security 

officer managed to take Sean out of the building. He could not find 

Chris Stevens. 

One of the horrors of the hours after the attack was our failure 

to be able to find where the Ambassador was. We hoped against 

hope that he had somehow gotten himself out of the compound and 

that he was alive somewhere, maybe in the back. And additional 

efforts by the Diplomatic Security officers and then eventually by 

the CIA reinforcements that arrived to find his body or to find him, 

hopefully, were unsuccessful, and they had to withdraw because of 

the continuing attack back to the CIA Annex before we knew what 

had happened to the Ambassador. We were desperate, and we were 

trying to call everybody we knew in Benghazi, in Libya, get additional help. 

What appears to have happened at some point later is that Libyans found Ambassador Stevens, and they carried him to the hospital in Benghazi, and Libyan doctors labored nearly two hours to 

try to resuscitate him. 

And I mention all of this because I want not just the committee 

members but any viewers in the public to understand that this was 

the fog of war, that the Diplomatic Security officers and then later 

the CIA officers responded with heroism, professionalism, as they 

had been trained to do. 

We thought things would be safe once they took refuge in the 

CIA Annex. And as we know, even though that was a highly fortified, much more secure facility than our diplomatic compound, 

and one that we had nothing to do with in the State Department, 

it turned out also to be a target for the militants, which is where 

the two CIA contractors, Mr. Woods and Mr. Doherty, died. But in 

looking at all of the information, the Accountability Review Board 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
350 

and particularly Admiral Mullen, who was focused on what happened, what the security personnel did that night, came out agreeing that they were heroic, and they did all they could do to try to 

save their colleagues’ lives. 

Chairman GOWDY. The gentleman yields back. 

Madam Secretary, I appreciate you going through their heroism. 

I really do. It is moving to hear from. And, frankly, it infuriates 

me to hear folks to my left, who don’t raise a single whisper about 

spending $50 million to train five ISIS fighters, but God forbid we 

spend one-tenth of that to give some answers to the family members sitting on the first row. So I appreciate you discussing their 

heroism while some of my colleagues discuss money. 

With that, Mr. Pompeo. 

Mr. POMPEO. I’d actually like to add to that. I think—you know, 

Mr. Smith gave a soliloquy. I think it was elegant, but more importantly, I think it was representative of the behavior of the Democrats on this panel. Since May of 2014, not one finger, not one 

question for a witness. They say they want to get to the truth, but 

the truth of the matter is they’ve spent most of their time today— 

anybody can rewind the tape and find—they’ve spent most of their 

time today attacking members of this committee and this process, 

and I regret that. I think that’s a violation of their duty to the 

country and, most importantly, their duty to the families. 

I want to go back to a couple things that I talked to you about 

a bit before, Madam Secretary. So Ambassador Stevens didn’t have 

your email? Is that correct? Your personal email. 

Mrs. CLINTON. I’m sorry. What did you ask me? 

Mr. POMPEO. Ambassador Stevens did not have your personal 

email address. We’ve established that. 

Mrs. CLINTON. Yes. That’s right. 

Mr. POMPEO. Did he have your cell phone number? 

Mrs. CLINTON. No, but he had the 24-hour number of the State 

operations—— 

Mr. POMPEO. Did that—— 

Mrs. CLINTON [continuing]. In the State Department that can 

reach me 24/7. 

Mr. POMPEO. Yes, ma’am. Did he have your fax number? 

Mrs. CLINTON. He had the fax number of the State Department. 

Mr. POMPEO. Did he have your home address? 

Mrs. CLINTON. No. I don’t think any ambassador has ever asked 

me for that. 

Mr. POMPEO. Did he ever stop by your house? 

Mrs. CLINTON. No, he did not, Congressman. 

Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Blumenthal had each of those and did each of 

those things. This man upon whom provided you so much information on Libya had access to you in ways that were very different 

than the access that a very senior diplomat had to you and your 

person. 

I’d ask—I had a picture up here a bit ago of a man named 

Wissam bin Hamid. You said you didn’t recognize who he was. 

Were you ever briefed that he was present at the compound the 

night that Ambassador Stevens was killed? 

Mrs. CLINTON. We’re trying to track down the basis of your question, Congressman. We have no information at this time. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
351 

Mr. POMPEO. My question is a yes-or-no question. It’s pretty simple. 

Mrs. CLINTON. Well, I don’t—— 

Mr. POMPEO. Do you—— 

Mrs. CLINTON. I don’t have any information that I can provide 

to you yes or no—— 

Mr. POMPEO. So—— 

Mrs. CLINTON [continuing]. Because I know nothing about 

this—— 

Mr. POMPEO. So the answer—the question—— 

Mrs. CLINTON [continuing]. Question. 

Mr. POMPEO [continuing]. Is were you briefed. And the answer 

is? 

Mrs. CLINTON. We don’t know anything about it, so how could I 

have been briefed about something we know nothing about. 

Mr. POMPEO. Great. Thank you. 

Are all ARBs created equal? 

Mrs. CLINTON. Well, there have been 19, including the one that 

we impaneled after Benghazi. They’ve all been led by distinguished 

Americans. They’ve all been set up in accordance with the laws and 

rules that the Congress established when they created the legislation to establish ARBs, so I assume, in those respects, they are created equal. 

Mr. POMPEO. Yes, ma’am. You know, I’m asking—I asked a pretty simple—pretty simple yes-or-no question, I guess, and I’m happy 

to let you expand. I’m happy to bring breakfast in, but when we 

ask a yes-or-no question, it would sure be helpful if we could get 

to the answer. That’s pretty—it wasn’t a trick question at all. 

Are the recommendations of each ARB worthy of equal treatment? 

Mrs. CLINTON. Well, they certainly are worthy of follow up by the 

Department, and I believe that they have been. 

Mr. POMPEO. There was an ARB—please, if you put up the poster, please. There was an ARB in 1998—you said this before in your 

testimony—200 folks were killed. Here’s what its recommendation 

said. It said, ‘‘special mission security posture that was inadequate 

for Benghazi and’’—excuse me. This is from the most recent one. 

I wanted to know if you agree with this: special mission security 

posture that was inadequate for Benghazi and grossly inadequate 

to deal with the attack that took place. Do you agree with that 

statement from the current ARB? 

Mrs. CLINTON. I accepted the recommendations of the—— 

Mr. POMPEO. Well, my question—— 

Mrs. CLINTON [continuing]. Current ARB. 

Mr. POMPEO. Madam Secretary, my question is if you agree with 

it. 

Mrs. CLINTON. I don’t think that’s a relevant question—— 

Mr. POMPEO. The question—— 

Mrs. CLINTON [continuing]. Congressman. I think the question is 

I accepted their recommendations, and obviously, their recommendations were based on their very thorough investigation and 

analysis, so clearly I endorsed the entire Board’s work. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
352 

Mr. POMPEO. In January 2014, Senator Feinstein—a noted conservative—said, in her report, ‘‘the incidents at the TMF and CIA 

were likely preventable,’’ end of quote. 

Do you agree with that statement from Senator Feinstein’s report? 

Mrs. CLINTON. Well, I would like to think that anything of that 

magnitude and the loss of life could have in some way been preventable. I think that what the ARB recommended were steps to 

try to enhance our ability to prevent future attacks. 

Mr. POMPEO. Let’s go back. I want to go back now. I have the 

right poster up. I apologize for that. In 1998, here’s what the ARB 

said. It said, quote: ‘‘The Secretary of State should personally review the security situation of embassy chanceries and other official 

premises, closing those which are highly vulnerable and threatened,’’ end of quote. 

You’ve told us all day today that you don’t think you should have 

been involved, and quoting again from the ARB, personally reviewing security. How do you square that? 

Mrs. CLINTON. Well, there are a couple of important points to 

make about this, Congressman. First, I made a number of decisions 

to close embassy chanceries and other official premises based on security. I closed the Embassy in Tripoli. I had to evacuate all of the 

Americans out of Libya. We had to, you know, lease ferries that 

came from Malta. We closed embassies and other facilities when we 

had a strong consensus recommendation that it was necessary to 

do. So that is a statement of secretarial responsibility. 

Now, with respect to looking at every security request, how high 

should the wall be, whether there should be barricades placed on 

the east or the west side, that is handled by the security professionals. 

So, clearly, I closed embassies. I recommended that embassies 

and other facilities be closed. So I understand what that point is. 

Mr. POMPEO. Madam Secretary, this is a yes-or-no question. Do 

you think you complied with what the ARB in 1998 said and personally reviewed the security at Benghazi? 

Mrs. CLINTON. Well, that’s—that is not what my understanding 

of the 1998 ARB—— 

Mr. POMPEO. Well, it’s just words, Madam Secretary. They’re 

right there. 

Mrs. CLINTON. Well, and I just answered. I personally reviewed 

security situations of chanceries and other official facilities that 

were recommended, because they were highly vulnerable and 

threatened, to be closed, and we closed some. Some we were able 

to reopen, which is kind of part of the process. 

With respect to the 1998 ARB recommendations, by the time I 

became Secretary, having succeeded two Secretaries who served 

during very dangerous and threatening times, there was an assessment made that I certainly was briefed into that we had to look 

at how best to professionalize the security and the expert advice 

that we were receiving. That was exactly what I did, and I went 

further than that. I created a new position, a Deputy Secretary for 

Resources and Management. I also had recommended, after our 

ARB, the Deputy Assistant Secretary for High Threats. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
353 

So this was a constant discussion about how to make us secure, 

but not whether or not the Secretary of State should decide on the 

height of the barricades. I think that’s where we may not be fully 

understanding one another, Congressman. 

Mr. POMPEO. I think we—— 

Mrs. CLINTON. Of course—— 

Mr. POMPEO. I think we understand each other perfectly. 

Mrs. CLINTON [continuing]. Specific questions about closing embassy chanceries and other official premises that were vulnerable 

and threatened, of course, they came to me. I had to make the decision. Deciding whether the wall would be 10 feet, 12 feet, whether 

there would be three security agents or five, that was the province, 

as it should have been, of the professionals. 

Mr. POMPEO. Madam Secretary, here’s another one from the 1998 

ARB. Quote, ‘‘First and foremost, the Secretary should take a personal and active role in carrying out the responsibility of ensuring 

the security for U.S. diplomatic personnel abroad.’’ 

Do you believe you complied with that requirement from the 

1998 ARB? 

Mrs. CLINTON. Yes, I do. I believe that I had established a process and I—you know, I said earlier today, State Department and 

our security professionals have to be 100 percent right. And I think 

that, you know, what happened in Benghazi was a tragedy and 

something that, you know, we all want to prevent from ever happening again, but there were many, many situations, many security issues that we had to deal with during the four years that I 

was Secretary of State. And I did leave what I hope will be a very 

important additional position, namely the Deputy for High-Threat 

Posts, that now will focus solely on what are considered the highest 

threat places in the world for our personnel. 

Mr. POMPEO. Madam Secretary, I hope you can understand the 

difference between creating a Deputy Under Assistant Secretary 

and America’s senior diplomat getting involved in personnel security. The amount of resources that can be moved, the speed with 

which they will move rested only in your hands. 

Mrs. CLINTON. Well, I just—— 

Mr. POMPEO. I’ll let—— 

Mrs. CLINTON [continuing]. Respectfully disagree with that, Congressman. It’s been my experience that you want to find people 

who are dedicated 100 percent to security. You don’t want a Secretary or anyone dipping in and out, maybe making decisions based 

on factors other than what the professionals decide, at least that 

is my very strong opinion. 

Mr. POMPEO. Yes, ma’am. Leaders lead. 

I want to—I’ve just got a few seconds. In all of the materials that 

have been produced to us today, I have not yet found the document 

that was prepared at your request for post-Qadhafi planning. Did 

you have such a document prepared prior to the time that Mr. Qadhafi was removed? 

Mrs. CLINTON. We had a number of documents. We had a long 

list of areas that we were working on and the process for following 

up on those areas. I don’t know if it was one document or a dozen 

documents, but we had a lot of work that was ongoing, both at the 

State Department and at USAID. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
354 

Mr. POMPEO. And did you ask for those documents to be prepared? Do you know if you had a team working on that or if it was 

just something that was happening of its own accord? 

Mrs. CLINTON. We had a number of people who were working on 

that. There were—as I said, I sent both of my deputies out to Libya 

to meet with the Libyans. You know, we can do all the planning 

we want in Washington, but it’s very important to ask the Libyans 

both what they want and what they expect from us, and so we had 

an ongoing dialogue that lasted over many months. 

Mr. POMPEO. Yes, ma’am. I agree with that. We’ll get a chance 

to talk about that in a bit. 

I yield back. 

Chairman GOWDY. The gentleman yields back. 

The chair will now recognize the gentlelady from Illinois, Ms. 

Duckworth. 

Ms. DUCKWORTH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Secretary Clinton, I apologize. My line of questioning will probably be a little bit boring because I’m going to get into some details 

that actually have to deal with security and how we can better 

safeguard America’s diplomats now and onwards. You know, I have 

to say that the ARB conducted by Admiral Mullen, a man of great 

military pedigree and long service to this Nation, quite honorable, 

brave service, as well as Ambassador Pickering, I thought, was well 

conducted and well thought out. And, in fact, don’t just take my 

word for it, I’m a pretty low ranking member of the House, but 

Buck McKeon, the former Republican chairman, long-time Republican chairman of the House Armed Services Committee also, you 

know—never once in our committee hearing did I hear him malign 

the work that was done in that ARB as we in our committee also 

looked into what happened. 

So I want to look at some of the findings from that ARB and I 

want specifically to examine the failures of the Blue Mountain 

Libya security guards and the February 13th militia on that exact 

day, September 11, 2012. My understanding is, in Benghazi, neither the host country’s militia forces nor the State Department’s 

private local guards were capable of defending our personnel. These 

poorly trained forces either did not show up; they retreated in the 

face of danger; or simply lacked the necessary tools to fight back 

effectively. 

I want to learn the lessons from Benghazi and hold everyone accountable, not just the State Department but every agency involved 

as well as Congress ourselves and this committee itself, for implementing significant comprehensive reforms that will prevent future 

tragedies. 

So, you know, looking at the work that I’ve done on the Armed 

Services Committee and on Oversight and Government Reform, I’ve 

been consistently concerned with the cost and consequences of federal contract mismanagement, which costs the American taxpayers 

a lot of dollars. So I want to look at the State Department’s policy 

for awarding local guard contracts, using a very inflexible contract 

vehicle known as the Lowest Price Technically Acceptable, or 

LPTA, vehicle. I think that should have raised red flags here in 

Congress. When life and limb are at risk, such as when buying 

body armor for our troops overseas or barriers for our embassies, 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
355 

I don’t know that Lowest Price Technically Acceptable is the right 

vehicle. 

So can you discuss a little bit why it is that the State Department appears to have awarded local guard contracts in Libya using 

this contracting method? 

Mrs. CLINTON. Congresswoman, I think that’s another very important question. I think the State Department, like much of the 

rest of the government, often feels under pressure to go to the lowest price, whether or not that lowest price is the best contract. 

And we had a lot of challenges, not just in Libya but in many 

places around the world, trying to work to find the right contractors to provide static security for a lot of our posts and facilities, 

to find more kinetic contractors who could be the frontline of defense since we, as we discussed earlier, were stationed in so many 

places where there were not American military that could be called 

and quickly respond. So I would like very much, and perhaps there 

could be a working group with Armed Services and Foreign Affairs 

and others to look to see whether we couldn’t get a little more flexibility into this decisionmaking because the February 17th militia 

was viewed by the CIA, which had vetted it, as well as by our diplomats as a reliable source for kinetic support. Sometimes it 

worked, and sometimes it didn’t. And the static support proved to 

be not very useful at all on that night. 

So I think you’re really raising an important issue about how to 

get more flexibility into the contracting because we’re not going to 

be able to bring American military forces to every place where we 

are in a high-threat post, either because the military can’t afford 

to do that for us or because the host country won’t invite us in. 

And the other problem, as you pointed out, is that if the host 

country doesn’t have any real resources, it’s hard to know how 

much they can produce. That night, I was calling the president of 

Libya and demanding that he find any friendly militia, any friendly 

anybody, to show up and to support us. When our reinforcements, 

the security reinforcements from Tripoli landed, a militia showed 

up and in fact kept them there until they had a big enough group 

to accompany them to the CIA Annex. 

So it’s a very unpredictable and even erratic process, and it 

starts with, in many instances, the lowest price, and I don’t think 

that’s always the best way to get a contract for security. 

Ms. DUCKWORTH. I happen to agree with you. And I think actually the LPTA requirement that I’m talking about that actually 

sets very inflexible standards for specifically the Department of 

State is actually a law passed by Congress in 1990. So when you 

talk about maybe some sort of a working group, Congress needs to 

do our part and maybe amend a 35-year-old law that actually 

forced the State Department to go with the lowest price. 

Secretary Clinton, can you address what actions Congress can 

take to fix problems that have to do with host country instituted 

stringent policies given the use of private security guards? My understanding is that the country of Libya, the host nation in this 

case, did not allow your security contractors to carry firearms, the 

Blue Mountain guards. I think the Blue Mountain guards were not 

allowed to carry firearms. 

Mrs. CLINTON. That’s right. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
356 

Ms. DUCKWORTH. Is that right? 

Mrs. CLINTON. Yeah, the Blue Mountain was not. Certainly our 

Diplomatic Security officers were. The militia members, who were 

supposed to be providing kinetic help for us, were. So it was only 

the static guards that were not. 

Now, I will say that, you know, some of those guards did stand 

their ground. They were basically run over. Several of them were 

injured the night of the attack. So I don’t want to cast aspersions 

on all of them and the service they provided, but it was not adequate for what we needed then or really at any time. 

Ms. DUCKWORTH. Are we facing that same type of restriction in 

other nations as well, in other hot spots? We talked earlier about 

the 19 missions that are out there. Would these types of issues 

with the LPTA and contracting and as well as host nation requirements exist there? 

Mrs. CLINTON. Yes, we do. You know, the host nation gets to call 

a lot of the shots. Under the Vienna Convention, the host nation 

is responsible for providing security for diplomatic posts, but when 

a host nation is either unwilling to do so, as we do have in some 

places where we are present, or unable to do so, because I do think 

with the Libyans, there was a desire to be helpful but not a capacity to produce what we needed, we have to really work hard to get 

the kind of support that is required. And, you know, in some cases, 

we’ve been able to work out arrangements with the host countries, 

some we have just defied them and tried to be very quiet about 

what we were doing, and others, you know, we are prohibited. So 

it’s a constant—again, it goes back to that balancing of risk and reward that we’re always doing. 

Ms. DUCKWORTH. Going back to the ARB conducted by Admiral 

Mullen and Ambassador Pickering, how many of their recommendations did you as Secretary of State accept? 

Mrs. CLINTON. I accepted all of them. They made 29 recommendations, Congresswoman. I accepted all 29 of them and 

began to implement them before I left the State Department, and 

I know that Secretary Kerry has continued that work. 

Ms. DUCKWORTH. Do you recommend for future Secretaries and 

for this committee and other members of Congress some sort of a 

formal review process as we go forward? I don’t want there to be 

a review process that is triggered by death of Americans. 

Mrs. CLINTON. Uh-huh. 

Ms. DUCKWORTH. This goes back to my earlier question about institutionalization of this process so that we make sure that our 

men and women in embassies right now are safe and that they’re 

safe tomorrow and a year from now and 10 years from now. What 

needs to be done so that we can make sure that our four heroic 

dead did not lay down their lives in vain? 

Mrs. CLINTON. Well, Congresswoman, before the attacks in 

Benghazi, the Congress never fully funded the security requests 

that the administration sent to Congress. Following Benghazi, that 

has improved, but there are still areas where I think greater funding and responsiveness would be helpful. It was unfortunate that 

we didn’t get all the resources that might have enabled us to do 

more in all the high-threat posts before Benghazi, but I appreciate 

what the Congress has done since. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
357 

The one specific recommendation that I would like to see the 

Congress act on expeditiously is the training facility that would be 

set up in order to train Diplomatic Security officers specifically for 

these high-threat situations. And I think this is overdue. I know 

that on a bipartisan basis, representatives from Virginia, which is 

the state where the site that has been identified is found, have 

urged in a recent op-ed that the Congress act on this. I would certainly echo that as well. 

Ms. DUCKWORTH. Thank you. 

I yield back. 

Chairman GOWDY. I thank the gentlelady. 

Madam Secretary, they’ve called votes, but we’re going to try to 

get in Mr. Roskam. 

And I’m going to recognize Mrs. Brooks for 10 seconds before Mr. 

Roskam. 

Mrs. BROOKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And just to clarify for the record, I made a statement previously 

that we had received none of Undersecretary Patrick Kennedy’s 

emails. We’ve received some through production of other individuals’ emails. We have not received a full production of Undersecretary Patrick Kennedy’s emails. So I just wanted to clarify, we do 

have some, but it is through other email production. 

Thank you. I yield back. 

Chairman GOWDY. Yes, ma’am. 

The gentleman from Illinois. 

Mr. ROSKAM. Thanks. 

Secretary Clinton, can I just direct your attention to the screen? 

[Video shown.] 

Mr. ROSKAM. You’re familiar with that clip, ‘‘We came, we saw, 

he died’’? Is that the Clinton doctrine? 

Mrs. CLINTON. No. That was an expression of relief that the military mission undertaken by NATO and our other partners had 

achieved its end, and therefore, no more American, European, or 

Arab lives would be at stake in trying to prevent Qadhafi from 

wreaking havoc on Libyans or causing more problems to the region 

and beyond. 

Mr. ROSKAM. I want to direct your attention and maybe direct 

the group’s attention right now to something that hasn’t really 

been discussed. There has been this explicit criticism of Republicans being partisans today, but I want to direct your attention to 

what is actually going on with you and your team, many of whom 

are here today with you. 

So Jake Sullivan, one of your close advisors that you just told us 

about, put together the tick tock on Libya memo, and that was a 

memo that was all about you. It put together 22 different accomplishments, and you were the central figure in all 22 of those accomplishments. 

And I’ve got to tell you, it’s really well-put-together. He uses language of ‘‘action’’ and ‘‘initiative’’ and ‘‘leadership.’’ Let me just give 

you a couple of these. HRC, that’s you obviously, announces, directs, appoints special envoy, travels to G8, secures Russian abstention, secures transition of command and control, travels to Berlin, Rome, Abu Dhabi, Istanbul. He’s basically laying the foundaVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:25 Apr 05, 2016 Jkt 098884 PO 00000 Frm 00359 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\B884P2.XXX B884P2

srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
358 

tion that the Libya policy is your policy. Essentially, he’s making 

the argument that it’s your baby. 

And you are clearly familiar with this timeline because in email 

exchanges with your senior staff, you were not happy about it. And 

the part that you weren’t happy about wasn’t that you were the 

focal point, it’s that it didn’t include enough. So you said, this is 

your email: What bothers me is that the Policy Office prepared the 

timeline, but it doesn’t include much of what I did. 

Another time, you said: The timeline is totally inadequate, which 

bothers me about our record-keeping—and I’ll come back to that in 

a minute, Madam Secretary—for example, I was in Paris on 3/19 

when the attack started. It’s not on the timeline. What else is missing? Go over as soon as possible. 

Now, this timeline was put together, according to your senior 

staff, explicitly for an article that came out in the Washington Post 

entitled ‘‘Clinton’s Key Role in Libya Conflict.’’ And, in fact, according to your staff, ‘‘The comprehensive tick tock memo Jake had put 

together was done in large part for the Warrick piece.’’ It was a 

piece written by Joby Warrick at the Washington Post. And, again, 

according to your staff, the great detail Joby had came entirely 

from Jake. That’s Jake Sullivan. Joby didn’t do any independent 

research. That’s according to your staff. 

Now, this article is one of these articles that you read a couple 

of times if it’s about you. Here are some excerpts. Washington Post: 

A foreign policy success for the Obama administration and its most 

famous Cabinet minister, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. 

Or this: She went to Paris. There were no instructions from the 

White House on whether to support strong action in Libya, said a 

senior State Department official, yet within 3 days, the official 

said, Clinton began to see a way forward. 

And I think my personal favorite is this: Clinton, ignoring the 

advice of State Department lawyers, convinced Obama to grant full 

diplomatic recognition to the rebels. 

Now, you and your team were pleased with the work that you 

did and the risks that you took, the leadership that you took. A 

couple—you know, a couple of hours ago, you told me: Hey, I’m the 

diplomat here; I’m driving the policy. And isn’t it true that you’d 

been thinking about getting political credit, actually, for months on 

this? 

Mrs. CLINTON. No. 

Mr. ROSKAM. Well—— 

Mrs. CLINTON. We were—— 

Mr. ROSKAM [continuing]. If that’s your answer—— 

Mrs. CLINTON. We were trying—— 

Mr. ROSKAM [continuing]. Let me draw your attention, Madam 

Secretary—— 

Mrs. CLINTON. But, Congressman, you—you—let me, please—— 

Mr. ROSKAM. All right. Sure enough. 

Mrs. CLINTON [continuing]. If I could. 

Mr. ROSKAM. Go ahead. 

Mrs. CLINTON [continuing]. We were trying to make sure that 

what was written, because it’s not always accurate, in case you all 

haven’t noticed in your own careers, what was written about a very 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
359 

important foreign policy effort by this administration was accurate. 

This was all in response, as I understand it, to a reporter trying 

to ask questions and us providing the best possible information we 

could; in fact, trying to make sure that we ourselves had a good 

timeline and that our record-keeping was accurate. 

I think that is not an uncommon experience here in Washington: 

somebody calls you up, says, ‘‘I’m writing a story; what can you tell 

us?’’ And you tell them. 

Mr. ROSKAM. Well, Secretary Clinton, that’s not all that was 

going on, though. Isn’t that right? Because you knew that this was 

good for you because this is what you were writing in August, August of 2011. This is right after Tripoli fell. You wrote: What about 

the idea of my flying to Martha’s Vineyard to see the President for 

30 minutes and then making a statement with him alone? 

Or you asked your staff how to convince the White House that 

this would be good for the President. 

And these are your words, Madam Secretary: It’s a great opportunity to describe all that we’ve been doing before the French try 

to take all the credit. 

In fact, your staff told you that they thought it would be a political boost for the President showing that he was huddling with you 

instead of being on vacation. And so you asked your chief of staff, 

Cheryl—or Jake Sullivan asked your chief of staff, Cheryl Mills, to 

call Denis McDonough, now the President’s chief of staff, to put together a full-court press—I’ll wait while you read Jake’s note. 

Mrs. CLINTON. Thank you, because I don’t understand—— 

Mr. ROSKAM. Here’s my question. 

Mrs. CLINTON. Yeah. I don’t—yeah. I’m waiting for a question. 

Mr. ROSKAM. Well, go ahead. You finish reading, and I’ll start 

talking. 

Mrs. CLINTON. Well, one thing I wanted, which is—— 

Mr. ROSKAM. Well, I’ll—— 

Mrs. CLINTON. Since I don’t have—— 

Mr. ROSKAM. Are you waiting for the question? 

Mrs. CLINTON. Since I don’t have what you’re reading—— 

Mr. ROSKAM. Oh. Here, I’ll—it’s page—— 

Mrs. CLINTON [continuing]. In front of me, Congressman—— 

Mr. ROSKAM. It’s tab 12. 

Mrs. CLINTON. Well, that has now been handed to me. And it’s 

clear that I wanted to make sure Chris Stevens, Jeff Feltman, 

DOD, got credit. I wrote that. You did not quote that. 

Mr. ROSKAM. Yeah. But you’re—— 

Mrs. CLINTON. Yeah. Well—— 

Mr. ROSKAM. This is all about your state of mind at that particular point. You were not—you were thinking about credit for 

you. Isn’t that right? 

Mrs. CLINTON. No, that’s not. I wanted those who were part of 

this policy to be given recognition, and I also wanted to be sure 

that we had the President and the White House coordinating with 

us. It was a very gutsy decision for the President to make, Congressman. It was not by any means an easy call. As I alluded earlier this morning, I was in that Situation Room many, many times 

watching the President have to balance competing interests, competing opinions, trying to make a decision. When he made the deciVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:25 Apr 05, 2016 Jkt 098884 PO 00000 Frm 00361 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\B884P2.XXX B884P2

srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
360 

sion that the United States would support NATO and support the 

Arabs, there was no guarantee about how it would turn out. And 

I personally believe he deserved a lot of credit, as did Chris Stevens, Jeff Feltman, the Department of Defense, and others. 

We had a daily phone call, a daily secure phone call that often 

included the President, included, you know, the generals responsible—generals and the admirals responsible for our mission, included our top diplomats. This was a very important and challenging effort that we undertook in large measure to support our 

NATO allies. So I wanted everybody who had any role in it to be 

acknowledged. 

Mr. ROSKAM. Well, and then, on August 2011, you received an 

email from Sidney Blumenthal, that’s tab 11, in which he wrote 

this to you: ‘‘This is a historic moment, and you will be credited for 

realizing it. When Qadhafi himself is finally removed, you should, 

of course, make a public statement before the cameras wherever 

you are, even in the driveway of your vacation home. You must go 

on camera.’’ 

That was Blumenthal’s admonishment to you. 

Mrs. CLINTON. And I don’t recall doing that, just—— 

Mr. ROSKAM. Well—— 

Mrs. CLINTON [continuing]. In case you’re going to ask me. 

Mr. ROSKAM. Yeah. But, I mean, look at the timing. You forwarded Blumenthal’s suggestion to Jake Sullivan, and you were focused on how dramatic it would be. You were working to make this 

the story of the day. Isn’t that right? This is your email to Jake. 

This is tab 11. This is your words, Madam Secretary: ‘‘Sid makes 

a good case for what I should say, but it’s premised on being said 

after Qadhafi goes, which will make it more dramatic. That’s my 

hesitancy, since I’m not sure how many chances I’ll get.’’ 

So 2 months before the end of the Qadhafi regime, and you’re already planning on how to make your statement dramatic to maximize political gains. Isn’t that right? 

Mrs. CLINTON. Congressman, I think that what we were trying 

to do was to keep the American people informed about this policy. 

It was, as you recall, somewhat controversial. Now, there were Republicans as well as Democrats who advocated for it, and there 

were Republicans as well as Democrats who were concerned about 

it. So I think as Secretary of State, I did have an obligation at 

some point to be part of the public discussion about what had occurred, and I see nothing at all unusual about trying to figure out 

when would be the best time to do that. 

Mr. ROSKAM. Isn’t it true that your staff heard from the White 

House after the Warrick piece in the Washington Post that they 

were concerned, that is, the White House, of the amount of credit 

that you were getting as opposed to the amount of credit the President’s getting? That’s true, isn’t it, Madam Secretary? 

Mrs. CLINTON. Look, the President deserves the lion’s share of 

the credit. He was the—— 

Mr. ROSKAM. Then why is the White House uptight that you’re 

taking the credit? 

Mrs. CLINTON. Well, I was often being asked that. The President 

had a lot of other stuff going on. He was still trying to, you know, 

rescue the economy, a lot of other things happening. So, from my 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
361 

perspective, the President deserves the credit. He’s the one who 

made the decision. I was honored to be part of the team that advised him, and insofar as I was able to explain what we did and 

what the import of it was, I was ready to do so. 

Mr. ROSKAM. So when Jake Sullivan, tab 11, emails you and said 

that you wanted—you should publicize this in all of your television 

appearances, that he wanted to, ‘‘have you lay down something definitive, almost like the Clinton Doctrine.’’ That wasn’t the Obama 

doctrine. Is that right, Madam Secretary? 

Mrs. CLINTON. Well, I think what—— 

Mr. ROSKAM. This was the Clinton Doctrine. 

Mrs. CLINTON. Well, look, I think that the effort we made, the 

way we put together the coalition, the way I put together the coalition that imposed sanctions on Iran, I think that there is a lot to 

talk about. I talked about smart power. If you’re talking about 

what I believe, I believe we have to use every tool at our disposal, 

lead with diplomacy, support with development, and when necessary, as a last resort, not a first choice, defense. So, yes. Is that 

what I believe? It is what I believe. And I think that, you know, 

Libya was, to some extent, an example of that. 

Mr. ROSKAM. And you were the author of the Libya policy. You 

were the one that drove it. It was your baby. It was an attempt 

to use smart power, and that’s what you tried to do. Isn’t that 

right? 

Mrs. CLINTON. It certainly was something that I came to believe 

was in the interests of the United States to join with our NATO 

allies and our Arab partners in doing. The decision, as all decisions 

in any administration, was made by the President. So the President deserves the historic credit. What role I played, I’m very 

grateful to have had that chance, and I’m, you know, very convinced that it was the right thing to do. 

Mr. ROSKAM. Well, you just recited the Clinton Doctrine to us, 

and let me tell you what I think the Clinton Doctrine is. I think 

it’s where an opportunity is seized to turn progress in Libya into 

a political win for Hillary Rodham Clinton, and at the precise moment when things look good, take a victory lap like on all the Sunday shows three times that year before Qadhafi was killed, and 

then turn your attention to other things. 

I yield back. 

Mrs. CLINTON. Well, Congressman, that is only a political statement, which you well understand. And I don’t understand why that 

has anything to do with what we are supposed to be talking about 

today. 

Chairman GOWDY. Madam Secretary, votes have been called, so 

we will go vote and be in recess. And we will be back as quickly 

as we can. 

[Recess.] 

Chairman GOWDY. The committee will come to order. 

Thank you, Madam Secretary. Again, we apologize for that vote 

series. 

And, with that, we will go to the gentlelady from Alabama, Mrs. 

Roby. 

Mrs. ROBY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
362 

Secretary Clinton, I want to talk to you about August 17, 2012. 

On that day, you received two memos about Libya and its security. 

The first one described a deteriorating security situation and what 

it meant for your people on the ground. The second one also described Libya’s security as, in simple terms, ‘‘a mess.’’ 

So this memo wanted you to approve $20 million to be given to 

the Libyan Government to bolster its—— 

Mrs. CLINTON. Could you tell me what tab that is on the materials that you have—— 

Mrs. ROBY. Oh, sure, yes ma’am. The first one is, I believe, 33 

and 34. 

Mrs. CLINTON. Thank you. 

Mrs. ROBY. I apologize. 

So you received those two memos. The second one also described 

Libya’s security in simple terms as ‘‘a mess.’’ And it was, again, 

that you were approached about approving this $20 million that we 

have referred to as the contingency fund, $20 million that would 

have gone to the Libyan Government to bolster their own security 

there in country. And then, in fact, a few days later, you approved 

that $20 million. 

And I am going to get back to that in a minute, but I want to 

circle back, based on those two memos, to some questions that my 

colleague Mr. Pompeo asked about the 1998 ARB. You had talked 

about, in that line of questioning, that you, in fact, had made the 

decision to close some embassies based on the premise that—the 

1998 ARB recommended the Secretary of State should personally 

review the security situation. You made a distinction between 

whether the walls should be 10 foot high versus whether or not it 

was a highly vulnerable situation. 

And so I wanted to ask you, when I was listening to that, knowing that I was going to address these August 17 memos, I wanted 

to ask you, when you were looking at these two memos on August 

17—one said their security was in disarray, and the other said they 

paint a picture of a country in chaos. And I wanted to just ask you, 

in your opinion, as a Secretary of State that had closed embassies, 

whether those references to the security situation in Libya would 

amount to one as ‘‘highly vulnerable,’’ per your own words. 

Mrs. CLINTON. Congresswoman, I want to answer your question, 

but I think we need the right tabs. 

Mrs. ROBY. Excuse me, 8 and 32. I apologize. 

Mrs. CLINTON. Thank you very much. Let me take a look at 

those, 8 and 32. 

On August 17, there was a memo from Beth Jones, the Acting 

Secretary of State, describing a spike in violence and characterizing 

it as perhaps a new normal. 

It is, very clearly, something that we were following, as I have 

said throughout the hearing today. It said that the International 

Committee of the Red Cross had withdrawn personnel from 

Benghazi and Misrata but continued to work in the rest of Libya. 

It also pointed out that there is a lack of effective security and that 

the transition, the kind of transition we wanted to see for the people of Libya and particularly in Benghazi, was not as forthcoming 

from the Libyans themselves. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
363 

I think that the description here is certainly something that we 

were aware of, and a list of recent violence in Libya is something 

we were aware of. And the ongoing monitoring of the situation in 

Libya is something we took very seriously. 

I can tell you that these kinds of assessments were not uncommon for other places, high-threat, dangerous, unstable places, even 

war zones, where we were also operating. 

Mrs. ROBY. Would you categorize those type of descriptions as 

‘‘highly vulnerable’’? 

Mrs. CLINTON. Well, I think that, again, there was no recommendation based on any of the assessments, not from our State 

Department experts, not from the intelligence community, that we 

should abandon either Benghazi or Tripoli. 

Mrs. ROBY. Right, and I understand that. 

And, Secretary Clinton, you know, I guess one of the questions 

that we need answered is: You were a huge advocate for our presence there to begin with. What prevented you from making the decision, based on the knowledge that you had from these memos 

about the deteriorating security situation, what prevented you, as 

Secretary of State, from making that decision on your own? 

Mrs. CLINTON. Well, Congresswoman, I took into consideration a 

wide variety of factors. There were a number of places where violence would spike and we would have to make a decision. 

At this point, what we were trying to do was work with the Libyan authorities. That’s what the August 17 memo from Deputy Secretary Nides refers to. We were trying to provide additional security assistance so that the Libyans could do more to assist themselves. 

And, you know, it is the case that in the world we are in today 

there are a lot of places that are dangerous. Violence goes up and 

goes down. Part of what Acting Assistant Secretary Beth Jones was 

referencing in this memo is this is a new—is this a new normal? 

And the Secretary does personally oversee the decision to order 

departure or shut down posts. And it is important to take that ultimate responsibility very much to heart, which I did. But I think 

that there was no recommendation to do that. 

And, again—— 

Mrs. ROBY. All right. 

Mrs. CLINTON [continuing]. I was following it. I was watching it. 

I was trying to, you know, make a very well-reasoned analysis. But 

I was also listening to the people who were both on the ground and 

with a lot of experience, who had served in Iraq—— 

Mrs. ROBY. Right. 

Mrs. CLINTON [continuing]. Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, other 

places like that, and there was no recommendation. 

Mrs. ROBY. Secretary Clinton, what I am trying to make a distinction between is the decisions you made with respect to 

Benghazi and decisions that your staff made with respect to 

Benghazi. But I am already running out of time, so I do want to 

get back to that $20 million that we talked about. 

On numerous occasions, the finger has been pointed at Congress 

for not properly funding the security—or the funding not being 

available for the security requests. Yet I find it curious that you 

were able to find $20 million to support increased security forces 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
364 

in Libya, yet we weren’t able to find money to support your own 

people on the ground. And, you know, particularly in light of the 

fact that Mrs. Lamb said that funding wasn’t an issue. 

So I think that it has been a little bit misleading to say it is Congress’ fault, but then, also, it is worth pointing out that there was 

$20 million found for Libyan security and no dollars found to support the increased security of our own people. 

Mrs. CLINTON. Well, as I know you are aware, Congresswoman, 

the Congress sets spending levels in categories of spending. And, 

as I said earlier, the requests for diplomatic security to do exactly 

what you are referencing were underfunded. They were underfunded continuously. I am pleased that, following the tragedy at 

Benghazi, we began to get more support from the Congress. 

But one of the funds that is very important when you’re actually 

talking about an American presence in the country goes back to 

questions that I was being asked by Congresswoman Duckworth. 

If we can help build up the Libyan security forces, they are the 

host country; it is their responsibility to protect diplomatic posts. 

So I don’t see these as unconnected. But it is true that we spent 

money for diplomatic security out of what the Congress appropriated for diplomatic security. 

Mrs. ROBY. Right, but, Secretary Clinton, Charlene Lamb said 

herself it wasn’t a budget issue. Would you take issue with that 

statement? 

Mrs. CLINTON. Well, I can only tell you that our analysis of the 

underfunding of security for our diplomatic posts was very much in 

line with what I have just said, that we asked for money in this 

administration in the earlier years, and we were underfunded. 

And so I can tell you that it would have been very helpful to 

have more money for diplomatic security. And I want to thank the 

Congress for upping the amount of money that went to diplomatic 

security, working with the Defense Department to get more Marines deployed to more posts and the other actions that have been 

taken post-Benghazi. 

Mrs. ROBY. And we appreciate that. Although, again, I really 

think there is a conflict between Charlene Lamb’s statement and 

some that you have made about that. 

But, real quickly, Mr. Chairman, I want to run through one 

quick timeline and make an observation. 

On August 17, you received a memo on the deteriorating security in Libya. The same day, you were asked to give $20 million to the 

Libyan Government to beef up its own security. Your department 

issued a warning telling American citizens to get out of Libya and 

not to travel there. And then Libya itself issued a, ‘‘maximum 

alert’’ for Benghazi. 

You several times made the statement—and we believe you— 

that Ambassador Stevens was your friend. And I am wondering 

why, with all of this in front of you, the Secretary of State, why 

did it not occur to you to pick up the phone and call your friend? 

I know you have mentioned experts. I know you have said that 

Ambassador Stevens and other diplomats go into these high-threat 

situations with their eyes wide open. But I just want to hear from 

you why, with all of this information in front of you, particularly 

on the date of August 17, did it not occur to you to pick up the 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
365 

phone and call your friend Ambassador Stevens and ask him what 

he needed? 

Mrs. CLINTON. We knew what he was asking for. Those requests 

went to the security professionals. 

And I would only add, with respect to the travel warning, we 

issued travel warnings for many, many places in the world. They 

are really aimed at informing American travelers, business travelers, tourists about conditions that they might face if they go to 

countries. They are not a criterion for determining whether we 

keep or end a diplomatic presence. 

And I just want to go back to the point you were making and 

read from the Accountability Review Board. 

‘‘For many years, the State Department has been engaged in a 

struggle to obtain the resources necessary to carry out its work, 

with varying degrees of success. This has brought about a deep 

sense of the importance of husbanding resources to meet the highest priorities—laudable in the extreme. But it has also had the effect of conditioning a few State Department managers to favor restricting the use of resources as a general orientation. 

‘‘It is imperative for the State Department to be mission-driven 

rather than resource-constrained. And one overall conclusion in 

this report is that Congress must do its part to meet this challenge 

and provide necessary resources to the State Department to address security risks and meet mission imperatives.’’ 

Mrs. ROBY. My time is out, and I am afraid my chairman is 

going to tell me to be quiet, but the last—— 

Chairman GOWDY. Well, I am not going to tell you to be quiet. 

I am just going to ask you if you might hold it. I am going to try 

to be a little quicker on the gavel than I have been, just in the interest of time. 

Mrs. ROBY. Okay. I will circle back then. Thank you. I yield back. 

Chairman GOWDY. I would recognize the gentleman from Maryland. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me say that, Madam Secretary and committee, the August 

17, 2012, information memo just referenced is not something new. 

Mrs. CLINTON. That’s right. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. It’s not something that this committee uncovered. 

Mrs. CLINTON. That’s right. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. In fact, Congress has had the information memo 

for years. It was attached as an exhibit to the Benghazi ARB report 

that Secretary Clinton sent to Congress before her testimony to 

Congress in January of 2013. The ARB had it and considered it important enough to append it to its report. And Congress already 

questioned the Secretary about her awareness of security conditions in Libya in the run-up to the attacks. 

Mrs. ROBY. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. CUMMINGS. We just gave you an extra 3 minutes. I have got 

to use my time. I’m sorry. If I have extra time, I will give it to you. 

Within months of the attacks, the Republican investigations of 

Benghazi have begun, and the chief investigator, Madam Secretary, 

who was chairman of the House Oversight Committee, Darrell Issa, 

made it clear that his efforts were directed at you as he spoke at 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
366 

a political event in New Hampshire. Chairman Issa had said he 

came to that political event in New Hampshire to, ‘‘shape the debate for 2016.’’ How right he was. In that event, Chairman Issa explained—can we roll the tape, please? 

[Video shown.] 

Mr. CUMMINGS. The idea that you would intentionally take steps 

to prevent assistance to Americans under attack in Benghazi is 

simply beyond the pale. The claim has also been disproven multiple 

times over. First, it was disproved by the ARB, which issued its report at the end of 2012. Admiral Mullen, former Chairman of the 

Joint Chiefs of Staff had led the ARB’s military review and concluded that the military had, ‘‘Done everything possible that we 

could.’’ 

Then the Republican-led—the Republican-led—House Armed 

Services Committee issued its report in February of 2014, Madam 

Secretary, which detailed all of the steps taken by the military to 

mobilize upon hearing of the attacks, including immediately redirecting a surveillance drone to Benghazi; ordering two Marine 

FAST platoons to Rota, Spain, to deploy, one bound for Benghazi 

and the other for Tripoli; ordering the commanders in in-extremis 

force training in Croatia to move to a U.S. naval air station in 

Sigonella, Italy; and dispatching a Special Operations Unit to the 

region from the United States. 

About his review, the chairman, Howard ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon, a Republican, stated: ‘‘I think I’ve been pretty well satisfied that given 

where the troops were, how quickly the thing all happened, and 

how quickly it dissipated, we probably couldn’t have done more 

than we did.’’ 

Chairman Issa’s Oversight Committee, which I am the ranking 

member of, even spent years actively pursuing evidence for this 

claim and found nothing. And as it says in the Democratic report 

we put out on Monday, none of the 54 individuals interviewed by 

our select committee has identified any evidence to support this Republican claim against you. In fact, not one of the nine congressional and independent investigations has identified any evidence 

to support this assertion in the last 3 years. 

My question: I sincerely hope this puts this offensive claim to 

rest once and for all. I’m asking you, Madam Secretary, did you 

order Defense Secretary Leon Panetta to stand down on the night 

of the attacks? 

Mrs. CLINTON. Of course not, Congressman, and I appreciate 

your going through the highlights of the very comprehensive report 

that the House Armed Services Committee did on this. I think it’s 

fair to say everybody, everybody, certainly Defense Secretary Panetta, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Dempsey, everybody in the 

military scrambled to see what they could do, and I was very grateful for that. And as you rightly point out, logistics and distance 

made it unlikely that they could be anywhere near Benghazi within 

any kind of reasonable time. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Now, Madam Secretary, the Benghazi attacks occurred during a period of significant upheaval and intense volatility in the Middle East and North Africa. There was tremendous 

unrest throughout the region. I would like to play a clip that shows 

what was happening at dozens of posts throughout the world, and 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
367 

then I would like to get your reaction if you can. Please, play the 

tape. 

[Video shown.] 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Secretary Clinton, what was your sense of how 

things were unfolding? 

Mrs. CLINTON. Congressman, they were very dangerous and very 

volatile. Starting on Monday with the attack on our Embassy in 

Cairo, going all the way through that week into the next week, 

there were numerous protests, some of which you have shown us 

clips of. And they were dangerous. You know, the one that I was 

particularly concerned about happened in Tunis, and it was the 

Friday after the attack in Benghazi. We knew from monitoring the 

media, from reports coming in from our embassies throughout the 

region, that this was a very hot issue. It was not going away. It 

was being kept alive. We were particularly worried about what 

might happen on Friday because Friday is the day of prayers for 

Muslims, so we were on very high alert going into Friday. 

I got a call through our operations department from our Ambassador in Tunis, who was in the safe room in the Embassy in Tunisia. There were thousands of demonstrators on the outside. They 

were battering down the barriers and the walls around our Embassy. They had already set on fire the American school, which is 

very close to the Embassy. And the Ambassador and his team were 

desperate for help. Their calls to the government of Tunisia, the 

host government had gone under answered. I immediately got on 

the phone, calling the Foreign Minister, calling the Prime Minister, 

who were the heads of government. I could not find either one of 

them. I called the President, President Marzouki. I got him on the 

phone. I told him he had to rescue our people. He had to disperse 

the crowds that were there because of the video. 

He said: I don’t control the Army. I have nothing I can do. 

I said: Mr. President, you must be able to do something. I’ve got 

all of my people inside the Embassy. They are being attacked. If 

the protesters get through into the Embassy, I don’t know what 

will happen. 

He said: Well, you know, I do have a presidential guard. 

I said: Mr. President, please deploy your presidential guard. At 

least show that Tunisia will stand with the United States against 

these protesters over this inflammatory video. 

To his great credit and to my great relief, that is exactly what 

he did. He sent the presidential guard. Those of you who have traveled know that sometimes they are, you know, men in fancy uniforms, sometimes they are on horses, but he sent them. He sent 

whatever he could muster to our rescue. And the crowd was dispersed. The damage was extensive. But we, thankfully, did not 

have anything other than property damage to the Embassy and to 

the American school. And the government of Tunisia later helped 

us to repair that. But it was the kind of incredibly tense moment, 

we had protesters going over the walls of our Embassy in Khartoum. We had protests, as you rightly point out, all the way to Indonesia. Thankfully, no Americans were killed, partly because I 

had been consistent in speaking out about that video. From the 

very first day when we knew it had sparked the attack on our Embassy in Cairo, I spoke about it because I wanted it to be clear to 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
368 

every government around the world that we were going to look to 

them to protect our facilities. And it was a very tense week, Congressman, one that I think demonstrated how volatile the world is, 

and how important it is for the United States to be on top of what 

people themselves are reacting to. And that’s what I tried to do 

during that time. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you, thank you very much. 

Chairman GOWDY. I thank the gentleman from Maryland. 

The chair will now recognize the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. 

Westmoreland. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Madam Secretary, I want to thank you for 

giving us a play-by-play of what happened in Tunisia. 

Could you do the same thing for what happened in Benghazi? 

Could you tell us the same kind of play-by-play about who came 

to the rescue there? Because I don’t know of anybody that did. So 

I don’t know who you called, and their lack of ability to get anybody there. It is just hard for me to comprehend why you would 

give us that blow-by-blow of something that we are not even investigating here, but we appreciate it. But I do want to ask you. 

Mrs. CLINTON. Well, Congressman if I could—— 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Sure. 

Mrs. CLINTON. Several of you have raised the video and have dismissed the importance of the video. And I think that is unfortunate 

because there’s no doubt, and as I said earlier, even the person we 

have now arrested as being one of the ring leaders of the attack 

on our compound in Benghazi is reputed to have used the video as 

a way to gather up the attackers that attacked our compound. 

So I think it’s important. These are complex issues, Mr. Congressman, and I think it’s important that we look at the totality 

of what was going on. It’s like that terrible incident that happened 

in Paris. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. I got you. 

Mrs. CLINTON. Cartoons sparked two Al Qaeda-trained attackers 

who killed, you know, nearly a dozen people. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Reclaiming my time. 

Mrs. CLINTON. I think it is important that you, as Members of 

Congress, looking into these issues, that you look at the totality so 

we can learn the best lessons to try to—— 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Yes, ma’am, reclaiming my time. Let me 

ask you about a little thing. You said that you spent a lot of sleepless nights. And I can’t imagine. And you said you often wondered 

what you could have done different. What did you come up with? 

Mrs. CLINTON. Oh, a long list, a long list, Congressman. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Give me the top two. 

Mrs. CLINTON. Well, to go back to the point that Congresswoman 

Duckworth was raising about contractors, if we’d had a more reliable security force in large enough numbers, well armed and well 

focused on protecting our compound—— 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Well, what could you have done different 

than what you did do? 

Mrs. CLINTON. Well, I’m trying to tell you. I think if the militia 

that had been engaged by both the CIA and the State Department 

had been more reliable—— 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
369 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. But you didn’t have anything to do with 

that, you said. 

Mrs. CLINTON. But I made a long list, Congressman, about anything that anybody could have done. And that’s how I looked at it. 

I looked at it from the perspective of, what are the many pieces? 

Contracting is a part of that. There are many other issues that we 

need to address. That’s really the main reason I’m here to continue 

to try to do what I can to honor those who were lost and to make 

sure that, you know, we are well-prepared to try to prevent. Now, 

we know we can’t prevent everything—that’s the way the world 

is—but to do the very best we can, and there are many elements 

that go into that. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Well, the contractors would be number one. 

What would be number two? 

Mrs. CLINTON. Well, if there had—I don’t think that’s an unimportant point. We had a militia. We had an unarmed static force 

that probably couldn’t have done much more. It should, I think, inspire us to look for ways to get host countries to permit there to 

be more dedicated security forces, well-enough armed and trained, 

to be really a force to protect our compounds and our other facilities. That would have perhaps made a difference. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Okay. 

Mrs. CLINTON. It certainly, you know, might have made a difference if we had more help from the CIA there on the compound, 

if maybe we had a rotating presence, but I have to—I have to say 

in reviewing a lot of the analyses that have been made by security 

experts, very well-trained, experienced security people, they are not 

sure that anything would have stopped the attackers. And I know 

that Admiral Mullen when he went into his work for the ARB, was 

concerned that none of the Diplomatic Security officers had fired a 

shot. They had their weapons. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Ma’am, I’m not trying to cut you off. I have 

tried to be nice, and you are doing well. We both talk slow, so let’s 

give each other a little breathing room here. 

You talked about Ms. Victoria Nuland. You know her, right? 

Mrs. CLINTON. Yes, I do. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Okay. This was her briefing on September 

the 13th. Some reporter named Elise had asked her a question 

about the security, and her response was: ‘‘I’m going to reject that, 

Elise. Let me tell you what I can about the security on our mission 

in Benghazi. It did include a local Libyan guard force around the 

outer perimeter.’’ That guard force never showed up that night, and 

it did not normally patrol the outer perimeter. The only people that 

patrolled the outer perimeter, was the unarmed Blue Mountain. 

But, she said: ‘‘This is the way we work in all of our missions all 

around the world, that the outer perimeter is the responsibility of 

the host government,’’ which there wasn’t really a host government 

at the time. ‘‘There was obviously a physical perimeter barrier, a 

wall, and then there was a robust American security presence inside the compound.’’ 

I don’t think five DS agents, not fully equipped or armed for 

what they were facing, you could call a robust American security 

presence. 

Mrs. CLINTON. Well, Congressman—— 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
370 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Would you have used the word ‘‘robust’’? 

Mrs. CLINTON. I would certainly have said that the security on 

that night was reliant on a militia that did not perform as had 

been expected. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. I am not talking about the militia on the 

outside. I am talking about the robust—— 

Mrs. CLINTON. Well—— 

Mr. WESTMORELAND [continuing]. American presence on the inside. 

Mrs. CLINTON. It was considered robust in the sense that the request had been for five Diplomatic Security officers to accompany 

the Ambassador. There were five there. And they did, as I have 

testified to, the very best they could. They were armed. 

And in the course of the thorough investigation conducted by the 

Accountability Review Board, as I was saying, Admiral Mullen zeroed in on this, having, you know, more than 40 years’ experience 

in the military. And he wanted to know why the DS agents had 

not fired their weapons. And they explained, as many since have 

heard who have interviewed them, their assessment was that it 

would have resulted in the loss of even—— 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Yes, ma’am. 

Mrs. CLINTON [continuing]. Greater life, and they chose not to. 

And Admiral Mullen reached the conclusion that they acted appropriately. 

So, even though we had the five DS agents that had been requested, they were overrun and unable to do more than they did. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. They were overrun because they didn’t 

have any defensive positions to fight from because they refused to 

give them additional sandbags because they did not want it to look 

like a military compound. I have heard that testimony. 

I want to ask you about the FEST. Are you familiar with the 

FEST? 

Mrs. CLINTON. Yes. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. What is the FEST, Madam Secretary? 

Mrs. CLINTON. It is an emergency support team to help stand up 

embassies that have or consulates or other facilities that have been 

impacted by either natural disasters or some kind of—— 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Attacks. 

Mrs. CLINTON [continuing]. Attacks. Exactly. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Kidnapping. And where are they located? 

Mrs. CLINTON. They are located in the United States. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. At Langley Air Force Base? 

Mrs. CLINTON. I’m not sure of where they’re located now. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. They are there. And it is an interagency 

task force. 

Mrs. CLINTON. Right. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. It includes the FBI, I guess the DOD, and 

the State Department? 

Mrs. CLINTON. Uh-huh. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. And if you look at the State Department 

Web site, FEST comes up under that, so I am assuming that you 

are the lead in those agencies. 

Mrs. CLINTON. It’s an interagency effort. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
371 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Okay. But it was deployed in 1998 in 

Kenya, correct—— 

Mrs. CLINTON. Uh-huh. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND [continuing]. After the embassy bombing 

there, of the towers? 

Mrs. CLINTON. Right. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. And to Tanzania, correctly? 

Mrs. CLINTON. That’s correct. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. They were there, ready to go on short notice. They said they could have been ready in 4 hours to leave. 

This is the group of people that would go into a situation as you 

describe, when an embassy had been overrun, attacked, kidnapping, or whatever, to basically give guidance to any of the other 

forces or help that was coming in, correct? 

And I know that your staff—and we have a number of emails 

from your staff that originally recommended that you send the 

FEST team. And I think they may have talked to Mr. Sullivan, or 

it was somebody that got an email, and they said they would pass 

it up the chain. 

And somebody made the decision not to send the FEST team, 

which would have been, as Secretary of State, I would think, since 

it was a State Department-led mission, that that would have been 

the first thing that you would have wanted to get out. But, instead, 

if I understand correctly from the email chain, your first request 

was to see how soon the FBI could get over there. Is that a true 

statement? 

Mrs. CLINTON. Well, Congressman, the FEST went to East Africa 

to help rebuild our embassy capacity. They have expertise in, you 

know, once our two embassies were bombed, how do we regain 

communications, for example. We were not going to rebuild in 

Benghazi, so there was no reason to send a FEST team. 

There was a reason to try to get the FBI investigators into 

Benghazi as soon as it was safe for them to go, so they could start 

to try to build a case so we could bring the perpetrators of the attack to justice. That was absolutely the primary goal that we had 

in working with the FBI. 

And I think, you know, when we make a decision on a deployment of the FEST, it is not just the Secretary of State. In this case, 

there was the NSC involved, there was the CIA involved, there was 

a SVTC about it. And the considered conclusion was we’re not 

going to rebuild in Benghazi. So, yes, we didn’t send the FEST. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Well, that was a quick decision to make 

that night, that you were not going to rebuild in Benghazi. That 

was pretty—— 

Mrs. CLINTON. Well, the FEST would not—there was nothing to 

rebuild. There was—— 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. I understand, but you just mentioned all 

the agencies that would have been important to get on the ground 

as quick as possible and summarize what the situation was to give 

you that direction. 

But I know I am out of time, Mr. Chairman, but I do want to 

say: What Ms. Roby was trying to get you to say is what decisions 

did you make in regard to Benghazi and what were you responsible 

to make. And I think that is what all of us want to know. What 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
372 

did you do, and what decisions did you make? And you said everybody else is responsible for everything else. What were you responsible for? 

Mrs. CLINTON. I was responsible for sending Chris Stevens to 

Benghazi as an envoy. I was responsible for supporting a temporary mission that we were constantly evaluating to determine 

whether it should become permanent in Benghazi. I was responsible for recommending Chris Stevens to be the Ambassador. I was 

responsible for working on the policy both before and after the end 

of the Qadhafi regime. 

I was responsible for quite a bit, Congressman. I was not responsible for specific security requests and decisions. That is not something I was responsible for. 

Chairman GOWDY. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The chair will now recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. 

Schiff. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Madam Secretary, we are now almost at the end of the second 

round of questions, and I find it necessary to amend something 

that I said after the first round, and that is: I don’t understand the 

core theory of this case. I thought I did, but, after this round, I 

honestly don’t understand where my colleagues are coming from. 

I am probably not as good a lawyer, undoubtedly not as good a 

prosecutor as our chairman. Most of what we have gone over in 

this round, frankly, were questions that were asked to you when 

you testified before the House the last time, before you testified before the Senate; they were the subject of the ARB report. But there 

were a few unique lines of questioning that I want to comment and 

ask you about. 

One of my colleagues spent his time asking about some of your 

interactions with your press people, I guess critiquing your overall 

Libya strategy and something he called the ‘‘Clinton doctrine.’’ 

We have been assured this committee, contrary to what Representative McCarthy said, is not about attacking you, but, frankly, 

I don’t see the relevance of any of those questions in terms of what 

actually happened in Benghazi, except as a means of trying to attack you or make a political statement regarding the presidential 

campaign. 

And then there was the continuing preoccupation with Sidney 

Blumenthal. The chairman spent both panels asking you about Sidney Blumenthal. And I have to say, I just don’t understand the preoccupation with Sidney Blumenthal. You would think, for the time 

we have spent on him, that he was in Benghazi on the night manning the barricades. 

There is not a member on this dais that doesn’t have friends they 

have known for a long time that send them unsolicited emails, and 

we are too polite to write back saying, you know, ‘‘This really isn’t 

all that helpful.’’ There is not a member here that hasn’t had that 

experience. So I don’t know why that is so remarkable. 

So I honestly don’t understand this fixation, but I do know one 

thing about Sidney Blumenthal. It has been abundantly clear here 

today: My seven colleagues do not want the American people to 

read what he said in his deposition. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
373 

And I will tell you, it is not because of anything he said. What 

they really don’t want the American people to see is what they 

asked. And it was what Ranking Member Cummings intimated, 

which is they have gone on national TV to say, ‘‘We are not interested in the foundation, we are not interested in all these other 

things. We are only interested in whether we have gotten everything.’’ But when you read that deposition, you see, that is exactly 

what they were interested in. 

Now, I can’t release it myself, but I can tell you Sidney 

Blumenthal by the numbers. So here is Sidney Blumenthal by the 

numbers. 

Republicans asked more than 160 questions about Mr. 

Blumenthal’s relationship and communications with the Clintons, 

but less than 20 questions about the Benghazi attacks. 

Republicans asked more than 50 questions about the Clinton 

Foundation, but only four questions about security in Benghazi. 

Republicans asked more than 270 questions about Mr. 

Blumenthal’s alleged business activities in Libya, but no questions 

about the U.S. presence in Benghazi. 

And Republicans asked more than 45 questions about David 

Brock, Media Matters—I have no idea what that is even—and affiliated entities but no questions—no questions—about Ambassador 

Stevens and other U.S. personnel in Benghazi. 

That’s Sidney Blumenthal by the numbers. 

Now, there were a couple lines of questioning that I did understand. One of them was about the Accountability Review Board report. Now, not the one, actually, that is relevant to today about 

Benghazi, but the one that was written 17 years ago about a different attack in Tanzania. 

And Mr. Pompeo put up a very nice chart—they’ve got great exhibits—selectively quoting from that report. And the implication 

was that the Secretary should be the one deciding the security at 

every facility around the world. 

What he didn’t read to you was part of the same section of that 

report, which says, ‘‘In the process, the Secretary should reexamine 

the present organizational structure with the objective of assuring 

that a single high-ranking officer is accountable for all protective 

security matters and has the authority necessary to coordinate on 

the Secretary’s behalf.’’ 

Quite a different impression you get from reading the whole 

thing. 

We had a debate about whether we should participate in this 

committee, given where it was going and where it has been. Mr. 

Cummings said we should so we could be in the room to point out 

when a witness wasn’t treated fairly. I have to say, I think he was 

right, as much as I held the opposite opinion. 

But it is important to be able to point out, if they are not going 

to give you the actual report or give you the time to read it, where 

they want to be selective to make a point. Now, I don’t think that 

selectively quoting that 17-year-old ARB sheds much light on what 

happened in Benghazi, but it is a nice way to attack you. 

I also want to talk a bit about something that I spent a lot of 

time on as the ranking on Intel and as a member of the investigation that the Intelligence Committee did. That was a RepublicanVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:25 Apr 05, 2016 Jkt 098884 PO 00000 Frm 00375 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\B884P2.XXX B884P2

srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
374 

led investigation. Two of my colleagues here are on the same committee, went through the same investigation. 

And my colleagues have intimated that there was an effort to 

spin what happened. And they have neglected to point out—as you 

might imagine and as you well know—that the intelligence we got 

after an attack like this in the fog of war—initially, you believe one 

thing, and then you get more information and you understand 

something better, and then you get more and you understand still 

something better. And we were briefed by the Director of the CIA 

at the time. I wish he were here today. And our understanding 

kept evolving. 

And, in the beginning, we got it wrong. And I have looked 

through that. And, in that initial intelligence, within a few hours, 

there were some reports indicating it was a direct attack, as you 

told the Egyptian Prime Minister at the time. That was what was 

understood in the immediate hours. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Within 24 hours, though, we had intelligence, both 

open source and signals intelligence, that there was a protest, that 

the protest was hijacked, and that it became an attack. And your 

statements were indicative and reflective of what we knew then. It 

wasn’t until about a week or 10 days later when we actually got 

the videos from the compound that we learned definitively there 

was no protest. 

Well, that simple chronology sheds a lot of light on why you and 

Ambassador Rice said what you did at the time. Not a member 

here has shown anything you have said or the Ambassador said 

that was at all inconsistent with what our intelligence agencies 

told us exactly at the time. 

It may come of interest to some of my colleagues who are not on 

Intelligence to know that there are still a great many people in the 

intelligence community that believe the video was part of the motivation of some who attacked us on that night. 

I wish, frankly, we spent more time giving you an accurate representation of the documents and the reports and the facts instead 

of making an effort to demagogue on this. I find it fascinating, 

frankly, that my colleagues put so much reliance in the 17-year-old 

Accountability Review Board report, but they place no weight in 

the one actually about Benghazi. 

Thomas Pickering has 40 years of experience. There is probably 

no one in the diplomatic corps more respected. Admiral Mullen, the 

other co-chair, Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, someone the Republicans and Democrats both respected tremendously. Are we now 

to believe that they are a bunch of rubes? That they had the wool 

pulled over their eyes? Or that they were corrupt or incompetent? 

Why is their report of so little value? 

It’s hard for me to escape the conclusion that the one centric fact 

of them all is that you are running for President and with high poll 

numbers. And that’s why we are here. And I say all this because 

I never want to see this happen again. I don’t want four years from 

now or eight years from now or 12 years from now, another presidential election, for us to be in here, or for one side or the other, 

I don’t want the Republicans to say, ‘‘Let’s do Benghazi again, that 

really worked,’’ or the Democrats to say, ‘‘They did it to us, let’s do 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
375 

it to them.’’ And I think, frankly, by only pointing these things out, 

that’s the only way we are going to avoid having this happen again. 

Well, let me just ask you, on that 17-year-old ARB, and in light 

of Mr. Morell, who came in and talked to us—not about the security at the diplomatic facility, but at the CIA Annex—his testimony 

was, ‘‘All of the improvements to the security of Benghazi base, the 

idea to conduct an assessment, the assessment itself, the implementation of its recommendations, were all done without the 

knowledge and direction of the Director and I. It happened exactly 

where it should have happened which is in that security office.’’ 

The same view on the CIA’s part, which they are not here, but 

would you like to comment on what the full recommendation of the 

Tanzania ARB was and the very similar process used in our intelligence agencies? 

Mrs. CLINTON. Thank you very much, Congressman Schiff, and 

I think you make an excellent point. I’m aware of Deputy Director 

Morell’s testimony. It’s very similar to what I have said here. It is 

very similar to what I believe General Petraeus would have said 

had he come before you, that the issues about security, whether we 

are talking State Department or we are talking CIA or any other 

agency, are not made at the level of Secretary, Director; it is made 

at the appropriate level of the security professionals. And I think 

what Mike Morell told you in the Intelligence Committee investigation, you would hear from anyone in the government at a high level 

who has to deploy Americans around the world. 

We see that with the Defense Department. You know, we see 

breaches of security on our military bases. And we know that everybody is struggling to get it right. And as I have said, in the vast 

majority of cases, our security professionals do. And then, unfortunately, there are instances where they do not. And that’s why we 

have after-action reports or why we have the Accountability Review 

Board to look at what happened and try to learn from it. And going 

all the way back to Tehran and Beirut and East Africa and the 100 

attacks on facilities around the world since 2001, we have tried to 

learn and apply those lessons, and we will, I hope, continue doing 

so. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Thank you, Madam Secretary. I yield back. 

Chairman GOWDY. The gentleman yields back. 

The chair will now recognize the gentleman form Ohio, Mr. Jordan. 

Mr. JORDAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Secretary Clinton, just a couple of minutes ago, you said some of 

you have raised the video. Raised the video? You raised the video. 

At 10:08, on September 11, 2012, you raised the video. At 10:08, 

with Americans still fighting for their lives an hour and a half before the attack ends, you raised the video. 

I’m going to go back to that 10:08 statement. In our first round, 

you said that the statement was not meant to explain the type of 

attack or the cause of the attack. 

Let’s look at your statement. ‘‘Official press statement from the 

Department of State, statement on the attack in Benghazi, press 

statement, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Secretary of State, Washington, D.C., September 11, 2012. Twelve sentences in this statement. I’m going to focus on the one: ‘‘Some have sought to justify 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
376 

this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted 

on the Internet.’’ There’s a cause. There’s the motive presented 

there. And there’s only one motive. You say this, you say: ‘‘Inflammatory material caused vicious behavior.’’ Vicious behavior, vicious 

behavior that led and resulted in the deaths of four Americans. 

There sure seems to be cause there. 

Mrs. CLINTON. Congressman, may I read what I said? What I 

said is that: ‘‘I condemn in the strongest terms the attack on our 

mission in Benghazi today. As we work to secure our personnel and 

facilities we have confirmed that one of our State Department officers was killed. We are heartbroken by this terrible loss. Our 

thoughts and prayers are with his family and those who have suffered in this attack. This evening, I called Libyan President 

Magariaf to coordinate additional support to protect Americans in 

Libya. President Magariaf expressed his condemnation and condolences and pledged his government’s full cooperation. Some have 

sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the internet. The United States deplores 

any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. 

Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation, but let me be clear: There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind. In light of the events of today, the 

United States government is working with partner countries 

around the world to protect our personnel, our missions, and American citizens worldwide.’’ 

Mr. JORDAN. Right. And I’m asking. You said the first round 

there was no motive, no cause. You weren’t trying to explain the 

cause of the attack. It sure seems to me like you did. 

Mrs. CLINTON. Well, Congressman, what I—— 

Mr. JORDAN. You said, you presented ‘‘inflammatory material 

was the reason for the vicious behavior.’’ Is that not a cause and 

effect? 

Mrs. CLINTON. That’s not what it says. What I said was, ‘‘some 

have sought’’—— 

Mr. JORDAN. I know what you said. You read the whole thing. 

Mrs. CLINTON. I did. 

Mr. JORDAN. I’m asking about that one sentence because earlier 

you said it wasn’t, there was no cause, no motive presented. I think 

there was. And that’s what I think most of the American people 

thought. 

Mrs. CLINTON. Well, I know there was a great deal of news coverage that looked at the events in Cairo, looked at what happened 

in Benghazi, and drew some comparisons and maybe even connections. I know, as we have just heard from Congressman Schiff, 

there was a lot of fast-moving analysis by the intelligence community to try to make sense of all of this, and I can only tell you from 

the perspective of having been in the—— 

Mr. JORDAN. Secretary Clinton, hang on one second. If—the intelligence may have changed some, but your story didn’t. That’s the 

point. Privately, and privately your story was much different than 

it was publicly. 

Again, you said to the Egyptian Prime Minister: We know the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned 

attack, not a protest. You said to your family: Terrorists killed two 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
377 

of our good people. So your story privately is much different than 

what you are telling the American people. The intelligence may 

have changed, the video may have had an impact in other places, 

but in Benghazi, it didn’t. And you tried to put them all together. 

That’s what bothers us. Let me show you a slide here. 

This is from September 14. The first statement is by Jay Carney: 

‘‘Let’s be clear these protests were a reaction to a video that had 

spread to the region. We have no information to suggest that 

Benghazi was a preplanned attack.’’ 

The statement below is from your press person in Libya, sends 

to Greg Hicks and to the experts in the Near Eastern Affairs Bureau, the same people who said Susan Rice was off the reservation—off the reservation on five networks. Here’s what they get, 

here is what she says to them: ‘‘Benghazi, more a terrorist attack 

than a protest. We want to distinguish’’—distinguish—‘‘not conflate 

the events. This was a well-planned attack.’’ So again, privately, 

the experts in the Near Eastern Affairs Bureau, the experts in 

Libya, know that this was a well-planned attack, but publicly Jay 

Carney is saying the same thing you are saying publicly: We have 

no information that this was preplanned. This was caused by a 

video. 

Mrs. CLINTON. Congressman, the next morning, at 9:59, I gave 

another statement and I listened carefully to what you said, and 

you kept talking about cause. Well, the word ‘‘cause’’ is not in my 

statement of the night before. 

Mr. JORDAN. I’m referring to what you said to me in our first exchange 2 hours ago. 

Mrs. CLINTON. No, well, I’m sorry, Congressman, if I haven’t 

been clear, I will try to be clearer. I was talking about people 

throughout the region trying to justify attacks on our facilities, as 

we saw later in the week, and justifying their behavior and repeating it and using the fact of the video, not only to arouse crowds, 

as we saw in the video clips that the ranking member played, but 

also that would deter governments from coming to our rescue because they would be, perhaps, ambivalent about doing so. So you’re 

right, I mentioned the video because I feared what would happen, 

and in fact, it did happen. And in the next morning, the night before was a brief statement that we put out because we knew we 

had lost Sean Smith, and I felt an obligation to tell that to the 

American people. 

Mr. JORDAN. Madam Secretary. 

Mrs. CLINTON. The next morning, I gave a much longer statement, and it was very clear: Heavily armed militants assaulted the 

compound and set fire to our buildings. That’s what it says. 

Mr. JORDAN. Secretary Clinton, that’s all good, but you said you 

were trying to communicate to folks all over, all the folks you have 

around the Middle East, right? 

Mrs. CLINTON. Yes. I was trying to send a message, yes. 

Mr. JORDAN. Okay, I got it. But that’s not what the experts said. 

They said: Don’t conflate the events. Tell the truth about Benghazi. 

Talk about what happened there. Other places where the video 

may have had impact, fine, say that. 

Why did you put them all together when you didn’t do that privately? When you told your family about Benghazi, it was: TerrorVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:25 Apr 05, 2016 Jkt 098884 PO 00000 Frm 00379 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\B884P2.XXX B884P2

srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
378 

ists killed two of our people. When you talked to the Libyan President: Ansar al-Sharia did it. Al Qaeda did it. When you talked to 

the Egyptian Prime Minister, we know it’s not a film. We know it’s 

not a protest. We know it’s not a video. It’s a terrorist attack. 

Mrs. CLINTON. Well, Congressman, I was working off the information that we had which was that Ansar al-Sharia claimed responsibility. And, at that point, I did say that it was an Al Qaedarelated group. 

Mr. JORDAN. Madam Secretary, look at the difference in these 

two statements. One says it wasn’t a preplanned attack. That’s Jay 

Carney talking publicly. The other says from your experts in Libya, 

says it was a well-planned attack. Now, they could not be further 

apart. They could not be. That’s what I’m having a hard time figuring out. 

And you know what’s interesting, the date of this, 9–14–12, 9– 

14–12. Do you know what else happened on the 14th, September 

14? There’s another document that is kind of important. That’s the 

same day that Ben Rhodes drafted his talking points memo. Bullet 

point No. 2: To underscore that these protests are rooted in an 

Internet video, not a broader failure of policy because we couldn’t 

have Libya, your baby, as Mr. Roskam pointed out earlier, we 

couldn’t have that fail. Can’t have that. So the same day you have 

got Jay Carney saying, this was no way a preplanned attack and 

the experts in Libya, talking Greg Hicks and the Near Eastern Affairs people, are saying it was a well-planned attack, that same 

day, the talking points that gets Susan Rice ready for the Sunday 

shows: Make sure you focus on the video. 

Mrs. CLINTON. Well, Congressman—— 

Mr. JORDAN. Make sure you focus on the video, not about a 

broader policy failure. After all, we got an election coming in 50 

some days. 

Mrs. CLINTON. Well, Congressman, I believe to this day the video 

played a role. I believe that the person we have—— 

Mr. JORDAN. But your experts didn’t. 

Mrs. CLINTON. There were many experts. If you look—you probably haven’t had an opportunity to read the excellent report issued 

by the Democrats, but on September 13, the intelligence community issued its first thorough, fully coordinated assessment of what 

happened in Benghazi. It said, ‘‘We assess the attacks on Tuesday 

against the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi began spontaneously . . . 

The attacks began spontaneously following the protests at the U.S. 

Embassy in Cairo . . . Extremists with ties to Al Qaeda were involved in the attacks.’’ There is no contradiction. 

The protests because of the video—— 

Mr. JORDAN. Is there a contradiction—— 

Mrs. CLINTON [continuing]. And those who were affiliated with 

Al Qaeda—— 

Mr. JORDAN. Is there a contradiction right here, Secretary Clinton? 

Mrs. CLINTON. There is no contradiction, Congressman. 

Mr. JORDAN. How about this contradiction: Well-planned attack. 

No preplanned attack. How about that? 

Mrs. CLINTON. Well—— 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
379 

Mr. JORDAN. One of them is well planned; one of them isn’t. Jay 

Carney says there was no preplanned attack, and the experts in 

Libya said it was a preplanned attack. 

Mrs. CLINTON. Well, the experts in Libya were among the experts looking at this and analyzing it. We went on the basis of the 

intelligence community, and they were scrambling to get all the information that they could. And, yes, the intelligence community assessment served as the basis for what Ambassador Rice said when 

she appeared on the Sunday show. 

And on September 18, when the video footage arrived from the 

security cameras, the Deputy CIA Director has testified it was not 

until September 18 when the CIA received the Libyan Government’s assessment of video footage that showed the front of the facility with no sign of protesters, that it became clear we needed to 

revisit our analysis. And then, after they looked at the video footage and FBI reporting from interviews of personnel on the ground 

in Benghazi during the attacks, the CIA changed its assessment. 

And that was explained thoroughly in the bipartisan report issued 

by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, which 

did a very thorough job, Congressman. 

Chairman GOWDY. The gentleman yields back. 

Madam Secretary, I think we’re going to take a quick 10-minute 

break. Two of my colleagues throughout the day have asked for 10 

seconds. I’ve had a third colleague ask for 10 seconds. If she holds 

it to 10 seconds, I will give the gentlelady from Alabama 10 seconds. 

Mrs. ROBY. I just wanted to point out that the ranking member 

is actually incorrect. The August 17 memo that I was referring to 

in my last question we have not had the opportunity to discuss 

with Secretary Clinton and how it affected her decisions, and it 

was just declassified last week. 

Chairman GOWDY. All right. With that, we will take a 10-minute 

break and come back. 

[Recess.] 

Chairman GOWDY. Welcome back, Madam Secretary. 

The chair will now recognize the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. 

Roskam. 

Mr. 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 Qadhafi’s death, and essentially a victory lap, then I think 

your interest waned, and I think your attention waned. And I think 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
380 

that the emails that Mrs. Brooks put forth, 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 30, 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 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 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 7, June 9, July 19, August 2, and March 28, all of 2012, how 

is it possible that those didn’t break through? 

You’ve 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 deteriorating situation, and to admit a deteriorating situation didn’t fit your narrative of a successful foreign policy. 

Where did I get that wrong? 

Mrs. CLINTON. From the very beginning you got it wrong, Congressman. Look, we knew that Libya’s transition from the brutal 

dictatorship of Qadhafi, 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 in position 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 Qadhafi fell. We worked 

closely with the interim government, and we offered a wide range 

of technical assistance. We were very much involved in helping 

them provide their first parliamentary elections. That was quite an 

accomplishment. 

A lot of other countries that were post-conflict did not have anything like the positive elections Libya did. In July of 2012, the 

transitional government handed over power to a new General National Congress in August. We were doing everything we could 

think of to help Libya succeed. We tried to bolster the effectiveness 

of the interim government. 

We worked very hard to get rid of the chemical weapons, coordinating with the transition Libyan authorities, with the U.N., and 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
381 

others. And by February of 2014, we had assisted in destroying the 

last of Qadhafi’s chemical weapons. 

We were combating the spread of shoulder-shoulder—anti-aircraft shoulder-fired missiles because of the danger that they posed 

to commercial aircraft. And we were providing assistance, some of 

which I discussed earlier with Congresswoman Roby. We had humanitarian assistance. We brought people for health to Europe and 

for—and to the United States. 

But much of what we offered, despite our best efforts—we had 

the Prime Minister come to Washington in the spring of 2012— 

much of what we offered was difficult for the Libyans to understand how to accept. 

I traveled, as you know, to Libya and met there, I stayed in close 

touch with Libya’s leaders throughout the rest of my time as Secretary. Both of my deputies 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 demilitarization, demobilization, trying to reintegrate militia fighters into 

something resembling a security force and on securing loose weapons. 

I think it’s important to recognize—and, of course, I was ultimately responsible for security. I took responsibility for what happened in Benghazi. What my point—— 

Mr. 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 were 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? 

Mrs. 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—— 

Mr. ROSKAM. What’s your responsibility to Benghazi? That’s my 

question. 

Mrs. 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. 

Mr. ROSKAM. No one recommended closing, but you had two ambassadors that made several requests. And here’s basically what 

happened to their requests: They were torn up. They were dismissed. 

Mrs. CLINTON. Well, that’s just not true, Congressman. 

Mr. ROSKAM. Madam Secretary, they didn’t get through. It didn’t 

help them. Were those responded to? Is that your testimony today? 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
382 

Mrs. CLINTON. Many were responded to. There were affirmative 

responses to a number of requests for additional security. 

Mr. ROSKAM. And you laid this on Chris Stevens, didn’t you? You 

said earlier, he knows where to pull the levers. So aren’t you implying that it’s his responsibility to figure out how he’s supposed to 

be secure, because Chris Stevens knows how to pull the levers? Is 

that your testimony? 

Mrs. CLINTON. Ambassadors are the ones who pass on security 

recommendations and requests. That’s true throughout the world. 

Mr. ROSKAM. And when he does and they’re not responded to, 

what’s his—— 

Mrs. CLINTON. They too—they too rely on their security professionals. 

Mr. ROSKAM. What’s his remedy if they’re not responded to? 

What’s his remedy if it’s no? 

Mrs. CLINTON. As I testified earlier, he was in regular email contact with some of my closest advisers. 

Mr. ROSKAM. So hit resend, is that it? 

Mrs. CLINTON. He was in regular email contact and cable contact 

with a number of other—— 

Mr. ROSKAM. The cables didn’t get through. You created an environment, Madam Secretary, where the cables couldn’t get through. 

Now—— 

Mrs. CLINTON. Well, that is—that is inaccurate. Cables, as we 

have testified, and as I responded—— 

Mr. 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 stops at the security professionals. 

Mrs. CLINTON. Well, that’s not what I—— 

Mr. ROSKAM. Let me turn your attention—— 

Mrs. CLINTON. Congressman, that’s not what I was saying. I 

think we’ve tried to clarify that, you know, millions of cables come 

in. They’re processed and sent to the appropriate offices and personnel. With respect to specific—— 

Mr. ROSKAM. They didn’t get through. They didn’t make any difference. They couldn’t break into the inner circle of decisionmaking. 

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’ve 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, 

then during the transition, a weak Libyan government, marauding 

militias, even terrorist groups, a bomb exploded in the parking lot 

of his hotel. He never wavered. He never asked to come home. He 

never said let’s shut it down, quit, or go somewhere else. Because 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
383 

he understood that it was pivotal for America to be represented in 

that place at that time.’’ 

Secretary Clinton, I think you should have added this: Chris Stevens kept faith with the State Department that I headed even 

when we broke faith with him. He accepted my invitation to serve 

in Benghazi even though he was denied the security he implored 

us to give him. I and my colleagues were distracted by other matters and opportunities and ambitions, and we breached our fundamental duty to mitigate his danger and secure his safety and that 

of Glen Doherty, Sean Smith, and Tyrone Woods. 

That would be more accurate, wouldn’t you say, Secretary Clinton? 

Mrs. 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—— 

Mr. ROSKAM. Who does it disserve? 

Mrs. CLINTON. Well, it is a disservice of how hard the people who 

are given the responsibility of making these tough security decisions attempted to—— 

Mr. ROSKAM. The people that were disciplined? Did they keep 

faith with Chris Stevens? No. 

Mrs. CLINTON. Well, Chris Stevens was someone who had a commitment to our presence in Libya. 

Mr. ROSKAM. There is no question. 

Mrs. CLINTON. And we want to honor that by continuing—— 

Mr. ROSKAM. There is no question. 

Mrs. CLINTON [continuing]. To do what we can to support the 

Libyan people’s transition. It is very much, in my view, in America’s interest to continue to try to do so. 

Mr. ROSKAM. I yield back. 

Chairman GOWDY. Gentleman’s time has expired. 

The chair will now recognize the gentlelady from Illinois, Ms. 

Duckworth. 

Ms. DUCKWORTH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Madam Secretary, I just want to talk a little bit more about what 

has been done for embassy personnel security, diplomatic personnel 

security since then. My understanding is in Benghazi there were 

some security improvements that were made. Could you talk about 

some of those, both prior to the attacks as well as some of the 

things, that perhaps you sort of alluded to, with more ventilation 

in the safe rooms and some of those things? 

Mrs. CLINTON. Yeah. There were a number of security improvements that were made to the facility. Again, there was an emphasis on trying to buttress the outer walls, to try to, you know, create 

a more effective guard entrance. There was an effort to try to make 

sure that the facility itself was hardened so that it could withstand 

attacks if that came to pass. 

It was in a series of decisions made by the security professionals. 

In November of 2011, our people in Benghazi said they needed to 

hire additional local guards. Money was approved that day. In December of that year, they asked for money to buy jersey barriers. 

The funds were sent by the end of the week. 

In January of 2012, the RSO, meaning a regional security officer, 

requested that all personnel deploying to Tripoli and Benghazi for 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
384 

more than 30 days complete the specialized Foreign Affairs 

Counter Threat training course, which was soon implemented. 

Also in January 2012, they asked for money for sandbags, security lights, steel door upgrades, drop arm reinforced car barriers 

that was promptly sent. Later that month they were sent extra helmets, bulletproof vests, and a WMD response equipment. 

In February 2012, they requested support for a major renovation 

of the walls surrounding the complex, 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 in 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 needed 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. 

Ms. DUCKWORTH. Thank you. 

We know that short of putting people in bunkers and never allowing them outside of embassy compounds, we’re going to have 

some sort of a 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 provide for contingency operations, especially for known potentially volatile periods in the calendar year? September 11 comes through every year; 2016, September 11 is probably going to be an especially volatile time period. 

So can you talk a little bit about what you have done or what 

you’ve put into place and any difficulties you may have come across 

in coordinating with DOD, the intelligence agencies, others across 

the government? 

Is there a—know this is not a secure room so we can’t talk about 

things that are classified. But, you know, September 11 is coming. 

Prior to that week, are we moving aircraft carriers nearby? Are we 

putting an 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 you personally direct to take charge—to happen, especially at your level of 

interagency cooperation? 

Mrs. CLINTON. It’s an excellent question, and it’s really at the 

heart of what I hope will come out of this and the prior investigations. 

In December of 2014, Assistant Secretary Starr from the State 

Department testified before the select committee that 25 of the 29 

recommendations made by the ARB had been completed. And a 

September 2013 inspector general’s report noted that the ARB recVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:25 Apr 05, 2016 Jkt 098884 PO 00000 Frm 00386 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\B884P2.XXX B884P2

srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
385 

ommendations 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 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 interagency cooperation. 

The interagency security teams that you asked about earlier, Congresswoman, that’s a continuing commitment that we are working 

on. And I know, because of this terrible tragedy, 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 U.N. 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—one 

of the claims that was made that 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 assets so that they can have a quicker response time. 

I’ve not been involved intimately in this now for, you know, two 

years, 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. 

Ms. DUCKWORTH. You spoke about you—thank you—you spoke 

about 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—you know, if there 

is a CIA or DOD force nearby, a Marine FAST team, for example, 

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? 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
386 

Mrs. 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 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—— 

Ms. DUCKWORTH. Unarmed drone. I’m sorry, it was an unarmed 

drone, correct? 

Mrs. CLINTON. Yes, it was unarmed. It was on our—— 

Ms. DUCKWORTH. UAV. 

Mrs. CLINTON. Yeah. UAV, right. 

So 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. 

Ms. DUCKWORTH. Thank you. 

I’m out of time, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman GOWDY. I thank the gentlelady from Illinois. 

The chair would now recognize the gentlewoman from Indiana. 

Mrs. 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 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? 

Mrs. CLINTON. I think that the—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—— 

Mrs. BROOKS. But you acknowledge you were responsible for the 

temporary mission compound? 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
387 

Mrs. CLINTON. Yes, of course, but you put them together. 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 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 could we have issued a waiver, 

because we had to set up operations in order to make the assessments as to whether or not we would have a permanent mission, 

whether that mission would remain open. And we made extensive 

and constant improvements to the physical security, some of which 

I mentioned before. 

Mrs. BROOKS. Thank you. 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 

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 4 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 6. It is a 51-page document prepared 

by your head security guy in Libya. For security incidents, serious 

security incidents between June 2011 and July 2012, 51 pages 

long, 235 significant security incidents, 235 attacks in one year. In 

Benghazi, there were 77 serious attacks in one year; 64 in 2012. 

Now, let me just tell you, as I flip through this—and I’m not 

talking—Benghazi, as I showed earlier, it is a large city, about the 

size of D.C. or Boston. I’m not talking about violent attacks like 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 peoVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:25 Apr 05, 2016 Jkt 098884 PO 00000 Frm 00389 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\B884P2.XXX B884P2

srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
388 

ple 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? 

Mrs. CLINTON. Well—— 

Mrs. 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? 

Mrs. CLINTON. I believe—— 

Mrs. BROOKS. Yes or no, please. 

Mrs. CLINTON. Yes, I believe I did. But I—— 

Mrs. BROOKS. And when was that? 

Mrs. CLINTON. I don’t recall. And I want to clarify for the record 

that this document is about all of Libya, not just Benghazi. I don’t 

want anybody to be misled. 

Mrs. BROOKS. Absolutely, but 77 are about Benghazi. 

Mrs. CLINTON. You know, Congresswoman, look, I appreciate, 

and I really do, 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. And—— 

Mrs. BROOKS. And you’re their boss. Is that correct? 

Mrs. CLINTON. You’re right. You’re right I am. And we—— 

Mrs. BROOKS. And you’re their leader. Is that correct? And are 

there ever situations where you call them, where you bring them 

in, where you are personally caring and concerned and are letting 

them know that? Are there situations where you recall—and I’d 

like to know what the conversation was with Ambassador Stevens 

and what month it was with Ambassador Stevens, because there 

are no call logs with him. There’s nothing from the Ops Center 

with him that we have found. We have no record that you had any 

conversations with the Ambassador after you swore him in and before he died, and you were his boss. 

Mrs. CLINTON. I was the boss of ambassadors in 270 countries. 

I was the boss of ambassadors in places like Afghanistan, where 

shortly before I visited one time the embassy had been under brutal assault by the Taliban for hours. I am very well aware of the 

dangers that are faced by our diplomats and our development professionals. There was never a recommendation from Chris Stevens 

or anyone else to close Benghazi. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
389 

Now, sitting here in the comfort of this large, beautiful hearing 

room, it’s easy to say, well, there should have been, somebody 

should have stood up and said do that. But that was not the case. 

And it is a very difficult choice with respect to any of these facilities given the level of threat and instability that we confront 

around the world today. 

And it’s deeply, deeply distressing when any of our facilities or 

our personnel are in danger. And we do and have done the best we 

can, and I think we can do better, which is why I implemented all 

of the ARB’s recommendations, which we have barely talked about. 

Mrs. BROOKS. And, Madam Secretary—— 

Mrs. CLINTON. And those were essential in trying to improve and 

better position and prepare and respond, and that’s what we tried 

to do. 

And, you know, I find it, you know, deeply, you know, saddening 

because, obviously, everyone, everyone who knew him, everyone 

who worked with him, including Libyans, as I said at the very beginning, would have given anything to prevent this from happening. Our security professionals usually, in fact more than 99- 

plus percent of the time, get it right. 

Mrs. BROOKS. And, Madam Secretary, if we would have given 

anything, had you talked to him in July he would have told you 

that he had asked to keep the security in Libya that he had. He 

was told no by your State Department. We didn’t give him everything. Thank you. 

I yield back. 

Chairman GOWDY. The gentlelady is out of time. The witness 

may answer the question if she’d like to. 

Mrs. CLINTON. Well, it’s the same answer I’ve been giving all 

day. Chris Stevens had an opportunity to reach me directly anytime he thought there was something of importance. The people 

with whom he worked, the people who were around him and with 

him, they very well understood the dangers that they were confronting, and they did the best they could under the circumstances. 

And many of the security requests, as I just detailed, were agreed 

to; others weren’t. 

Chairman GOWDY. The gentlelady from California is recognized. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Thank you. 

Madam Secretary, I want to begin by thanking you for your patience and your endurance during today’s hearing. It’s been quite 

a long day. 

And I also want to begin by apologizing for my Republican colleagues who apparently either want to write your answers for you 

or testify for you, because I think it fits in better with their outlandish narratives of what happened. 

And since they insist on criticizing you for not doing anything 

right, I want to talk to you a little bit more about a line of questioning that we pursued in the first round of questions. I asked you 

a little bit about what you were doing the night of the attacks in 

Benghazi, and I want to just continue that a little bit more. 

Now, you said previously that you had spoken with the White 

House that evening, with the CIA, the Defense Department, and 

the State Department. You also spoke directly with people on the 

ground at the Embassy in Tripoli that night at around 7 p.m., and 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
390 

I can tell from the documents that we’ve seen that you’ve asked— 

you asked to speak with deputy chief of mission in Tripoli. 

Can you explain the purpose of that call and why you felt that 

was important? 

Mrs. CLINTON. Well, for a number of reasons. They were a source 

of information. They had their own sources on the ground that they 

were reaching out to, trying to gather additional insight into what 

happened, what provoked it, who was behind it. 

But much more importantly even than that, they were in a great 

state of dismay and grief. And I thought it was important to speak 

with our team in Tripoli directly so that they knew that we were 

trying as best we could from so far away to help them and to help 

their colleagues. 

We also had pushed to have an additional team of security officers fly from Tripoli, and really the embassy in Tripoli just took 

that on. They, in fact, probably came up with the idea and put it 

together and got the plane and sent more help on the way to 

Benghazi. But it was a very personal conversation between me and 

those who were in our embassy. 

This is a place that I’d spent a lot of time and paid a lot of attention to, as I said earlier. We had to evacuate the embassy before, 

while Qadhafi was still in power. I talked to those people in our 

embassy family as they were on the ferry going from Tripoli back 

to Malta. 

So we tried to, you know, engage with, listen to, and support our 

teams when they were facing these very difficult circumstances. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Now, this committee has interviewed your staff 

that was with you that evening of the attacks, your chief of staff, 

Cheryl Mills, and your deputy chief of staff, Jake Sullivan, and 

they explained that you personally participated in a secure video 

teleconference with senior officials from the intelligence community, the White House, and the Department of Defense. 

Your chief of staff, Cheryl Mills, told the committee that your attendance at the deputies-level meeting broke with protocol and surprised other attendees, but that you simply said, ‘‘These are our 

people on the ground. Where else would I be?’’ 

Why did you think that it was important for you to participate 

personally in that Deputies Committee meeting? 

Mrs. CLINTON. The people who were on that SVTC were part of 

the operational decisionmaking, and I wanted to know firsthand 

from them what they were trying to do to help us, particularly 

DOD. Also the intelligence community, because at that time, as I 

recall, the CIA Annex had not yet come under attack, and we were 

trying to get all Americans out of Benghazi. We were trying to provide planes for evacuation. 

So there was a lot of detail that was being worked out, and I 

wanted to be as hands-on as I could be, to know, number one, what 

all the other agencies were doing to help us, and what we could do 

to try to assist them in their efforts to get to Benghazi and do 

whatever was possible. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Were the participants surprised by your visit on 

the—— 

Mrs. CLINTON. Apparently they were, because they weren’t expecting me to walk into the room and sit down at the table. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
391 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Do you think that your appearance on that teleconference conveyed to them how seriously you were taking the attacks and the response to the attacks? 

Mrs. CLINTON. I’m sure it did, Congresswoman, but we’d been 

sounding the alarm and reaching out for several hours by then. 

And we were getting a very positive response from everyone. I 

knew—— 

Ms. SANCHEZ. From the Defense Department? 

Mrs. CLINTON. Yes, the Defense Department, you know, the CIA. 

Obviously, the White House was deeply involved in reaching out 

and coordinating with us. 

So we knew people were trying to help. There was never, ever 

any doubt about that. I just wanted to hear firsthand about their 

assessments of what they could do. Could they, could anybody get 

there in time? How were we going to evacuate the Americans? 

And we were also still unsure of where our Ambassador was, 

which made all of this incredibly difficult for everybody in the State 

Department. 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. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Your chief of staff also explained to this committee 

that you were concerned the night of the attacks, not only for the 

safety of your team in Benghazi, but also about your teams in Tripoli and elsewhere. She said this about you, ‘‘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 risk that Americans were at elsewhere? 

Mrs. 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 

swath 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. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. I want to switch line of questioning for just a second. I’ve got a couple minutes left. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
392 

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 posts. 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 ARB completed 

its work? 

Mrs. 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 the 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. 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 become 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 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 Yemen. You know, we kept 

the embassy open in Sana’a 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. And I 

was very grateful for their responsiveness. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. We’re grateful for yours. Thank you very much. 

I yield back. 

Chairman GOWDY. The gentlelady yields back. 

The chair will now recognize the gentlelady from Alabama, Mrs. 

Roby. 

Mrs. ROBY. Secretary Clinton, I want to follow up on 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 11, 2012, 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
393 

but you also stated that you left your office on the night of the attacks 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 SCIF in your 

home? 

Mrs. CLINTON. Yes, I did. 

Mrs. ROBY. Okay. And who else was at your home? Were you 

alone? 

Mrs. CLINTON. I was alone, yes. 

Mrs. ROBY. The whole night? 

Mrs. CLINTON. Well, yes, the whole night. 

Mrs. 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. 

Mrs. CLINTON. I’m sorry, a little note of levity at 7:15. Noted for 

the record. 

Mrs. ROBY. Well, I mean, the reason I say it’s not funny is because it went 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—— 

Mrs. CLINTON. Well, Congresswoman—— 

Mrs. Roby [continuing]. If you were alone the whole night. 

Mrs. CLINTON. Congresswoman, you asked if I had a SCIF. 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. 

Mrs. ROBY. Okay. Who was at your office when you left? Was 

Cheryl Mills, your chief of staff, still at the office when you left? 

Mrs. CLINTON. I don’t remember. I know that a lot of my staff 

were there. 

Mrs. ROBY. I’m going to go through and name them, we’ll see if 

you remember. Jake Sullivan, was he still there? 

Mrs. CLINTON. Well, when—yes, they were all there when I left. 

They were all there certainly when I left. 

Mrs. ROBY. Okay. Victoria Nuland was there when you left? 

Mrs. CLINTON. When I left everyone was there, is my—— 

Mrs. ROBY. Philippe Reines was there? 

Mrs. CLINTON. I can give you a blanket answer. When I left—— 

Mrs. ROBY. Well, no, I’m going to ask specifics. Was Patrick Kennedy there? 

Mrs. CLINTON. I’m sure he was. 

Mrs. ROBY. Was Philippe Reines there? 

Mrs. CLINTON. I don’t know. I don’t know whether he was—— 

Mrs. ROBY. What about Stephen Mull? 

Mrs. CLINTON. I’m sure that the core team at the State Department was still there. 

Mrs. ROBY. Beth Jones? 

Mrs. CLINTON. I’m sure she was. 

Mrs. ROBY. And Bill Burns and Thomas Nides? 

Mrs. 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. 

Mrs. ROBY. What time did you learn that Sean Smith had died? 

Mrs. CLINTON. That was earlier in the evening. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
394 

Mrs. ROBY. So that was before you left? 

Mrs. CLINTON. Yes. 

Mrs. ROBY. Okay. And then what about Ambassador Stevens, 

was that before? 

Mrs. CLINTON. It was before I left. 

Mrs. ROBY. Okay. And then what about his confirmation of his 

death, before or after you left? 

Mrs. CLINTON. We knew that, yes. 

Mrs. ROBY. Okay. And what about the recovery of his body? Was 

that before or after you left? 

Mrs. CLINTON. We got word that we had a sighting of—— 

Mrs. ROBY. Confirmation. 

Mrs. CLINTON. Well, I’m trying to tell you what we knew and 

how we found out, because it was something that we were trying 

to determine and we had mixed signals about what we learned. 

And it was our understanding, and certainly by the time I left, that 

he was most likely not alive. But I’m not sure exactly when we 

were able to confirm that because it depended upon getting firsthand information from a Libyan contact. 

Mrs. ROBY. Okay. Where were you when you learned of the second attack? Were you at home or at the office? 

Mrs. CLINTON. I was at home. 

Mrs. ROBY. And did you go back to the State Department when 

you learned about the second attack or did you stay home? 

Mrs. CLINTON. I stayed home. I went to the State Department 

early in the morning. The CIA Annex attack, as I recall, was, you 

know, late in the evening, early the next morning, by our time 

around 5 a.m. or so in Benghazi. 

Mrs. ROBY. Did you meet with the President that night? 

Mrs. CLINTON. I talked with the President. I did not meet with 

him. 

Mrs. ROBY. How many times did you talk to the President? 

Mrs. CLINTON. I talked to the President that evening. That was 

the only time I talked with him on the 11th, and then I went over 

to the White House the next morning. 

Mrs. ROBY. So once. And do you recall what time you spoke to 

the President? You said that evening. Do you recall more specifically what time? 

Mrs. CLINTON. I think it was late in the evening. I don’t know 

exactly when. 

Mrs. ROBY. What did you discuss? 

Mrs. CLINTON. I’m sorry, what? 

Mrs. ROBY. What specifically did you discuss with the President? 

Mrs. 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. 

Mrs. ROBY. What did he say to you? 

Mrs. 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. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
395 

Mrs. ROBY. Did you meet with Secretary Panetta? 

Mrs. CLINTON. No, I did not. 

Mrs. ROBY. Did you speak to Secretary Panetta? 

Mrs. CLINTON. The next day. 

Mrs. ROBY. Not on the 11th? 

Mrs. CLINTON. No. 

Mrs. ROBY. Okay. Did you talk with General Dempsey? 

Mrs. CLINTON. The next morning I did. 

Mrs. ROBY. So you did not meet with him or talk with him on 

the 11th? 

Mrs. 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 SVTC. 

Mrs. ROBY. I’m just trying to figure out if you did or you didn’t. 

Mrs. CLINTON. Well, I’m telling you, I sat in on the SVTC that 

Congresswoman Sanchez was asking me about because I wanted to 

talk to the operational people and they were represented on that 

SVTC. They were the ones who were carrying out the orders that 

they received from the President on down. 

Mrs. ROBY. What about Petraeus? When did you speak to him? 

Mrs. 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. 

Mrs. ROBY. Did you—our 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? 

Mrs. 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. 

Mrs. ROBY. Did you talk to them the next day? 

Mrs. CLINTON. No. 

Mrs. ROBY. Did you talk to them later that week? 

Mrs. CLINTON. No, I did not. 

Mrs. ROBY. Did you talk to them when they first got back to the 

United States? 

Mrs. 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, 

and—— 

Mrs. ROBY. How would it have harmed the case that was trying—that they were trying to build for you, Secretary of State, just 

to check in on their well-being? 

Mrs. CLINTON. I did check on their well-being. I—— 

Mrs. ROBY. No. Personally. 

Mrs. CLINTON. Well, I did personally talk with the people who 

were taking care of them, transporting them to Germany. 

Mrs. ROBY. Them, the survivors, when did you talk to the survivors? 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
396 

Mrs. 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. 

Mrs. ROBY. Okay. And—— 

Mrs. CLINTON. You know—— 

Mrs. ROBY [continuing]. Going back to Panetta and Dempsey, 

you had stated that they were the decisionmakers—— 

Mrs. CLINTON. Uh-huh. 

Mrs. ROBY [continuing]. But you never spoke with them while 

your people were on the ground? 

Mrs. CLINTON. I’m sorry. 

Mrs. ROBY. I want to make sure this is clear. Panetta and 

Dempsey were the decisionmakers 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 decisionmakers, your people were on the ground in harm’s way, and you 

never had a conversation with them. 

Mrs. CLINTON. I did not need to. During the turmoil of that afternoon and into the evening, we knew the President had personally 

told them both in the Oval Office that he expected them to do everything they possibly could do. And I knew that they would then 

turn to those officers responsible for carrying out that order. They 

were represented on that SVTC. That’s why I sat in it. 

And remember, too, Congresswoman, we had a lot of other 

threats coming in. We were still worried about Cairo. We had—— 

Mrs. ROBY. Well, I understand, but you had your people on the 

ground that were being attacked. 

I want to get back to the survivors in the little time I have left. 

Did you talk to the survivors directly at all—— 

Mrs. CLINTON. Yes, I did. 

Mrs. ROBY [continuing]. At any point? Can you tell us when? 

Mrs. CLINTON. It was kind of a rolling series of conversations. 

When they came back to the State Department, I met with and 

talked with them. As you know, their names have never been made 

public. I don’t intend to today. 

Mrs. ROBY. Can you give me a month? 

Mrs. CLINTON. I’m sorry. What? 

Mrs. ROBY. A month? 

Mrs. CLINTON. It was—for some of them, it was less time than 

that, and for one of them, I did not—I talked with him on the 

phone. I did not get to physically see him until he’d been released 

from the hospital, and that was early in 2013. 

Mrs. ROBY. I think, Mr. Chairman, there’s two messages here. I 

think the first message is that—is the message that you sent to 

your personnel the night of the attack, that you went home. They 

all stayed there, and you didn’t go back till the next morning. I 

think the second message that is sent is that you used the FBI’s 

inquiry as an excuse not to check in with your agents who were 

on the ground who survived that horrible night just to ask them 

how they were. 

And I yield back. 

Mrs. CLINTON. Well, if I could respond, Congresswoman. I think 

that, again, is part of a theory that you and your colleagues are attempting to weave. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
397 

It was made very clear that the FBI wanted a fresh and clean 

opportunity to speak with the survivors, which I totally understand, and, in fact, their investigation has led to the charging of 

at least one person, and I hope we find all of them and bring them 

to justice. 

Chairman GOWDY. The gentlelady yields back. 

The gentleman from Washington is recognized. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to start by pointing out that at this point, Secretary Clinton has testified here for longer than she did in the previous two 

testimonies on this subject combined. We’ve been here now for 91⁄2

hours, and the questions are increasingly badgering; I would even 

go on to say increasingly vicious. And, again, we’re hoping to elicit 

information that will help us learn what happened and learn how 

to prevent future attacks. 

And it seems to me that really what the majority is doing is they 

simply wish to wear you down and hopefully get you to say something that they can then later use. I just—I don’t see the utility 

of that. When the chairman returns, I’d be curious as to if we just 

plan on going all night continuing to badger the witness or if there 

is in fact an end point to this because I don’t think it’s fair to the 

witness to have to sit there for that long and go over intimate details. 

I mean, I guess we learned whether or not you had a fax machine, so I guess that was useful. But, you know, ‘‘did you talk to 

this person,’’ ‘‘did you talk to that person,’’ ‘‘was this person there,’’ 

‘‘was the other person there.’’ And, you know, let me just say, I’m 

very impressed by the number of answers you have and by the 

memory you have of all the details of this event, but I hope we will 

consider how much longer we’re going to continue to do this. 

And as to the last line of questioning, I mean, to imply that you 

didn’t care about your personnel. How many countries, how many 

different embassies, different consulates did you visit during your 

time as Secretary of State, roughly? I know you don’t know that 

off the top of your head. 

Mrs. CLINTON. Well, at least 112, and I think more than that because I sometimes visited the embassy itself plus the consulate in 

a country that I was in. 

Mr. SMITH. And can you give us a flavor—I know you went at 

one point to the Eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo because 

I have an interest in that area, which is a very dangerous place 

to be—can you give us a flavor for some of the places where you 

visited your personnel? 

Mrs. CLINTON. Well, Congressman, I did go to the Democratic 

Republic of Congo. I went to Eastern Congo because of the horrific 

violence there and the particularly unstable situation in that region. 

I, obviously, went to Yemen, and I have made many trips to Afghanistan and Pakistan and had the opportunity to visit our diplomats and our development experts in dangerous places. 

One of the, you know, one of the places that is particularly hard 

now is Iraq, and it was hard then. 

Egypt during the revolution was very challenging, and there I 

came under giant protests against the United States, against me 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
398 

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—— 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you. 

Mrs. CLINTON [continuing]. A complete one. 

Mr. SMITH. And let me just say that the line of questioning recently has been basically implying that you don’t care. Okay? 

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?’’ Okay? 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, and 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, and 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? 

Mrs. CLINTON. We have 270 countries we’re represented in. 

Mr. SMITH. Right. And on some level, the Secretary of State, Secretary Kerry now, you before, is responsible for all of them? 

Mrs. CLINTON. That’s right. 

Mr. SMITH. And how many personnel, roughly? 

Mrs. CLINTON. Seventy thousand, between the State Department 

and USAID. 

Mr. SMITH. And you’re responsible for all of them as well. 

Mrs. CLINTON. That’s true, Congressman. 

Mr. SMITH. Can any human being on the face of the planet protect every single one of them every second of every day? 

Mrs. CLINTON. Well—— 

Mr. SMITH. That’s a rhetorical question. 

Mrs. CLINTON. We can try. We can try. And, you know, 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 were making because 

I really appreciate it very much, Congressman. I care very deeply 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
399 

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’d 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. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you. 

And I do have one other point to make. Do you happen to know 

where the CIA Director, General Petraeus, was when the second 

attack happened on the CIA and where he went? Well, I—— 

Mrs. CLINTON. No, I do not. I don’t know where he was when I 

reached him and spoke with him. 

Mr. SMITH. Yeah. He was home operating out of a SCIF, and 

after the attack, he continued to operate out of that SCIF. 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 said or did during the 

course of this, and 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 gone back and forth. And I just want to make 

one other point. Congressman Jordan, you know, I like you. I have 

a great deal of respect for you. But this, you know, whole going 

back twice now to the ‘‘some’’ having 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 mind-boggling. I mean, and then to badger over and 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 can go on for another 6 or 7 hours, but I think 

we all understand the English language. And when you say ‘‘some 

have implied,’’ that means—well, I guess it means that some have 

implied; some others have implied. So, you know, it’s just very frustrating. 

I serve on the Armed Services Committee with Mac Thornberry, 

who’s the chairman of that committee, and we disagree about a 

heck of a lot, but 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 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
400 

Buck McKeon’s 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’s 

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 91⁄2 hours. 

And I thank you for putting up with it for that long and for your 

service. 

Mrs. CLINTON. Thank you. 

Chairman GOWDY. The gentleman yields back. 

The chairman now recognizes the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Jordan. 

Mr. 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 email situation 

keeps changing. Last month, on September 20, 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 straightforward, and being honest and straightforward right from the start, right from the get-go. 

Let’s look at a few things that you said here in the last few 

months. On March 10, 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 emails 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 email government officials on their dot-gov accounts. Later, you revised that statement, 

and you said there was a fraction of emails with work-related information sent to government officials on their personal accounts. 

Mr. SMITH. I’m sorry, but what does this have to do with what 

happened in Benghazi? 

Mr. JORDAN. Of course—— 

Mr. SMITH. When are we going to get there? 

Chairman GOWDY. The gentleman is not recognized. The gentleman from Ohio controls the time. 

Mr. JORDAN. This is—and it has everything to do because we 

want the records 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 1 hour of one interview, he might know a little 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
401 

more about the situation as well and the lack of getting the 

records. 

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 emails, 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 emails and determined that, yes, some indeed were 

classified. 

Secretary Clinton, it seems like there’s a pattern, a 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 emails keeps 

changing, then how can we accept your statement that you’ve 

turned over all work-related emails and all emails about Libya? 

Mrs. CLINTON. Well, Congressman, I have said repeatedly that I 

take responsibility for my use of personal email. I’ve said it was a 

mistake. I’ve said that it was allowed, but it was not a good choice. 

When I got to the Department, we were faced with a global financial crisis, major troop decisions on Afghanistan, the imperative to 

rebuild our alliances in Europe and Asia, an ongoing war in Iraq, 

and so much else. 

Email was not my primary means of communication, as I have 

said earlier. I did not have a computer on my desk. I’ve described 

how I did work, in meetings, secure and unsecure phone calls, reviewing many, many pages of materials every day, attending—— 

Mr. JORDAN. I appreciate—— 

Mrs. CLINTON [continuing]. A great deal of meetings. And I provided the Department, which has been providing you, with all of 

my work-related emails, all that I had, approximately 55,000 

pages, and they are being publicly released. 

Mr. JORDAN. I appreciate that. And let’s get into that. Those 

55,000 pages, there were 62,000 emails, total emails on your system. You have stated that you used a multistep process to determine which ones are private, which ones are public, which ones belong to you and your family, which ones belonged to the taxpayer. 

Who oversaw this multistep process in making that determination of which ones we might get and which ones that were personal? 

Mrs. CLINTON. That was overseen by my attorneys, and they conducted a rigorous review of my emails and were—— 

Mr. JORDAN. And these are the folks sitting behind you there, 

Mr. Kendall, Ms. Mills, Ms. Samuelson? 

Mrs. CLINTON. Yes. That’s right. 

Mr. JORDAN. All right. And you said ‘‘rigorous.’’ What does that 

mean? 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
402 

Mrs. CLINTON. It means that they were asked to provide anything that could be possibly construed as work-related. In fact, in 

my opinion, and that has been confirmed by both—— 

Mr. JORDAN. But I’m asking how—— 

Mrs. CLINTON [continuing]. The State Department and—— 

Mr. JORDAN. But I’m asking how it was done. Was—did someone 

physically look at the 62,000 emails, or did you use search terms, 

date parameters? I want to know the specifics. 

Mrs. CLINTON. They did all of that. And I did not look over their 

shoulders because I thought it would be appropriate for them to 

conduct that search, and they did. 

Mr. JORDAN. Will you provide this committee—or can you answer 

today, what were the search terms? 

Mrs. CLINTON. The search terms were everything you could 

imagine that might be related to anything, but they also went 

through every single email. 

Mr. JORDAN. But that’s not answering the question. What were 

the search terms? Search terms means terms. What terms did you 

use—— 

Mrs. CLINTON. I did not—— 

Mr. JORDAN [continuing]. And what were the date parameters? 

With what date did you start? What was the end date and the 

emails in between they were going to look at? 

Mrs. 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—— 

Mr. JORDAN. So you don’t know? 

Mrs. CLINTON [continuing]. Made the decisions. 

Mr. JORDAN. You don’t know what terms they used to determine 

which ones were your emails and which ones the State Department 

got and therefore we might get? 

Mrs. 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 emails—— 

Mr. JORDAN. I’m not asking about those. I’m asking about the 

62,000 that were exclusively on your system. 

Mrs. CLINTON. Ninety to 95 percent of all work-related emails 

were already in—— 

Mr. JORDAN. Well, we know that the National Archivist—Secretary Clinton, we know the National Archivist 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 and was—for his deposition. 

So if 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 might have made more mistakes we don’t know. 

Mrs. 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—— 

Mr. JORDAN. And I—— 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
403 

Mrs. CLINTON. I haven’t had a chance—— 

Mr. JORDAN. And I specifically asked Ms. Mills. I did. 

Mrs. CLINTON. Well—— 

Mr. JORDAN. I did. I asked her about this, and she gave me basically the same kind of answer you’re giving me. 

Mrs. CLINTON. Well, she’ll be happy to supplement the record if 

she—— 

Mr. JORDAN. Well, she’s not on the witness stand today; you are, 

and I’m asking you. 

Mrs. CLINTON. Well, but I asked my attorneys to do it. I thought 

that was the appropriate way to proceed. 

Mr. JORDAN. Let me do one other statement. Let me do one other 

statement—— 

Mrs. CLINTON. Okay. 

Mr. JORDAN [continuing]. Because it sounds like—I hope you’ll 

turn those—I hope we’ll know the terms. I think the American people would like to know what terms you used to determine what we 

might get so that we could get all the information on Libya and 

find out what happened where these four Americans gave their 

lives. I think that’s critical. 

In March you also said this: your server was physically located 

on your property, which is protected by the Secret Service. Now, 

I’ve had a hard time figuring this out, because this story’s been all 

over the place, but there was one server on your property in New 

York and a second server hosted by a Colorado company and 

housed in New Jersey. Is that right? There were two servers? 

Mrs. CLINTON. No. 

Mr. JORDAN. Okay. 

Mrs. CLINTON. There was a—there was a server—— 

Mr. JORDAN. Just one? 

Mrs. CLINTON [continuing]. That was already being used by my 

husband’s team, an existing system in our home that I used. And 

then, later, again, my husband’s office decided that they wanted to 

change their arrangements, and that’s when they contracted with 

the company in Colorado. 

Mr. JORDAN. And so there’s only one server, is that what you’re 

telling me, and it’s the one server that the FBI has? 

Mrs. CLINTON. The FBI has the server that was used during the 

tenure of my State Department service. 

Mr. JORDAN. Okay. In your statement, you say, which was protected by the Secret Service. Why’d you mention the Secret Service? 

Mrs. CLINTON. Well, because—— 

Mr. JORDAN. And here’s why I’m—could a Secret Service agent 

standing at the back door of your house protect someone in Russia 

or China from hacking into your system? Why did you mention the 

Secret Service agent? 

Mrs. CLINTON. Out of just an abundance of being transparent. 

Mr. JORDAN. Transparent? I—but—and how—what’s the relevance to protecting from classified information? 

Mrs. CLINTON. There was nothing marked classified on my 

emails, either sent or received. And I want to respond—— 

Mr. JORDAN. You used the right term there, you used ‘‘marked.’’ 

That’s the one—that’s what you—— 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
404 

Mrs. CLINTON. Well, but that’s—— 

Mr. JORDAN. You used the revised statement there. 

Mrs. CLINTON. Well, Congressman, there was a lot of confusion, 

because 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, 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. 

Mr. JORDAN. I’ve got one—— 

Mrs. 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. 

Mr. JORDAN. All right. All I know is that’s different than what 

you said in March. 

I’ve got one last question. The FBI’s got your server. They’re 

doing a forensic review of your server. They may, they may recover 

emails 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 

want to just ask you one simple question. If the FBI finds some of 

these emails that might be deleted as they’re reviewing your server, will you agree to you allow a mutual third party, like a retired 

Federal judge, to review any emails deleted to determine if any of 

them are relevant to our investigation? 

Mrs. 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. 

Mr. JORDAN. But would you, as the most transparent person 

ever, would you commit to say if—whatever they find, I went to a 

retired Federal judge to evaluate that and look and see if we need 

some of that information to get to the truth? 

Mrs. CLINTON. I have been releasing my emails 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. 

Mr. JORDAN. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Secretary. 

Chairman GOWDY. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The chair will now recognize the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. 

Westmoreland. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Thank you. 

Secretary Clinton, so far today I’ve said good morning, good 

afternoon, and—— 

Mrs. CLINTON. Are you all serving breakfast, Congressman? 

Mr. WESTMORELAND [continuing]. Good evening, so let me go 

ahead and say good night. 

You know, I may be the only person on this side that doesn’t 

really care about your personal email because I know that I think 

you said Colin Powell had one. 

The thing that bothers me is that it was a personal server. I 

think that’s the difference because Mr. Powell’s emails all went 

through the State Department server. So just to clarify it, I think 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
405 

the problem is that you had the full control of your emails because 

they were on a private server and not the government server. 

The other thing I’d like to say is to Ms. Duckworth, if you would 

read the testimony of the number of Diplomatic Security agents 

that served in Benghazi, most of them were temporary duty, 45-, 

60-day people that served. If you will read that, I think you’ll find 

that a lot of these things that the Secretary said as far as enhancements was paid for by petty cash out of their own money and not 

really fulfilled or completed. 

The other thing I want to ask you, Madam Secretary—— 

Ms. DUCKWORTH. Will the gentleman yield for just 20 seconds? 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Yeah. 

Ms. DUCKWORTH. I think that’s why it behooves us as Members 

of Congress to increase the security budget for the State Department. They routinely get less than they need, and I think that 

Americans in general would not begrudge more money for security 

to safeguard our diplomats. But I agree with you that the report 

does say that. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Well, reclaiming my time. There was $20 

million that she was going to send to Libya for their security upgrades. 

You mentioned the sixth man, that you had to wait on the sixth 

man. 

Mrs. CLINTON. The fifth man. I’m sorry. The fifth man. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Okay. All right. I was going to say there 

must have been somebody hiding in a closet or something that we 

didn’t know about. 

You also said in one of the last things that the State Department 

sent more security from Tripoli to Benghazi during the attack? 

Mrs. CLINTON. Uh-huh. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. There was not a State Department person 

on that plane. There were four GRS agents and two TDY DOD people. 

Mrs. CLINTON. And—— 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. And an interpreter. 

Mrs. CLINTON. Well, that—that is exactly right, and that’s why 

the cooperation and coordination that—— 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Well, ma’am—— 

Mrs. CLINTON [continuing]. I have been talking about with Congresswoman Duckworth—— 

Mr. 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 

their 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 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 not anything in—it doesn’t say anything about rebuilding anything. It says 

that it’s for crisis-management expertise; time-sensitive informaVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:25 Apr 05, 2016 Jkt 098884 PO 00000 Frm 00407 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\B884P2.XXX B884P2

srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
406 

tion; 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 web site. 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 emails that the first recommendation came back is the FEST 

from your own people, and 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? 

Mrs. 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 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 functioning 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. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. But you really didn’t know what was going 

on at that point, when you could have pulled—— 

Mrs. CLINTON. Well, we did know. 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, it—— 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Okay. 

Mrs. CLINTON. And—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. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Ma’am, I know that. 

Mrs. CLINTON. And so we had armed reinforcements coming from 

Tripoli. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. But that was the only tool that you had to 

get people over there yourself, not the DOD. 

Mrs. CLINTON. But the—— 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. This was the—— 

Mrs. CLINTON. I’m sorry, Congressman. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Well—— 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
407 

Mrs. CLINTON. I mean, look—— 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Evidently it has been—it has served its 

purpose from being put into different places it has responded to. 

But I want to talk to you just a little bit about your emails, and 

that is that I think you said it was October that you received the 

letter that asked you and former secretary of states to present all 

their emails. Is that correct? 

Mrs. CLINTON. That’s my memory, yes. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Okay. Now, in August, the State Department met with your attorneys to talk about the lack of the emails 

that they had. Did you know that? 

Mrs. CLINTON. I didn’t at the time, no. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. You didn’t know that they were meeting— 

that the State Department was meeting with your attorneys? 

Mrs. CLINTON. Not—not at that time. And as you also recall, the 

State Department was beginning to turn over to this committee my 

emails, because they had between 90 and 95 percent of all my 

work-related emails—— 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. But—— 

Mrs. CLINTON [continuing]. In the State Department system. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. But, ma’am, they met with your attorney, 

and your attorney that they met with happened to be Cheryl Mills, 

which was your chief of staff. 

Mrs. CLINTON. That’s correct. That’s correct. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Now, is that weird that your attorney was 

your chief of staff, so that attorney-client privilege may have kicked 

in there—— 

Mrs. CLINTON. She was—— 

Mr. WESTMORELAND [continuing]. Somewhere? 

Mrs. CLINTON. She was my counsel before she was my chief of 

staff. She became my counsel again after she was my chief of staff. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Well, I know that when the email went out 

that night, it called everybody under secretary, director, spokesman, and it said, Ms.—she—Ms. Mills was counselor. It didn’t say 

chief of staff. And that was the night of the attack. 

But let me just go a little bit further. You said that you found 

out in October, but your attorneys met with the State Department, 

and I believe it was in August. Now, from that time, you said you 

turned over everything and that your lawyers went through this. 

And I believe it was in November, after finding out in October, that 

they had reviewed all these emails. Now, the State Department 

hadn’t been able to give us all those emails in 2 years, but your 

attorneys—how many—you must have some of the fastest reading 

attorneys in the world to go through that, and I know you’ve got 

a group of them sitting behind you, but how many attorneys does 

it take to go through 65,000 emails in 2 months? 

Mrs. CLINTON. Well, first of all, the process to provide information to the Congress with respect to Benghazi started before I left 

the State Department. There was a concerted effort to gather up 

any information that might be responsive. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Did you tell them you had a private server 

at that time? 

Mrs. CLINTON. You know, I don’t—I know that—— 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
408 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Well, if they were gathering emails, you 

had to tell them that you had a private server—— 

Mrs. CLINTON. Well—— 

Mr. WESTMORELAND [continuing]. Because you were there. 

Mrs. CLINTON. Well, the server is not the point; it’s the account. 

And I made it a practice to send emails that were work-related to 

people on their government accounts. In fact—— 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Ma’am—— 

Mrs. CLINTON [continuing]. You know, Secretary Kerry is the 

first Secretary of State to rely primarily on a government account. 

So—— 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. But I’m not talking about the account; I’m 

talking about the server. But one last point. Let me just—I’ll close 

with this, and then the chairman can give you time to answer. You 

want me to tell you what I thought? I think that your attorneys 

sat down with the State Department, and they said: We’ve got a 

problem, and so we’ve got to come up with something that this is 

not just the secretary having these emails in a private server, so 

I tell you what let’s do. Let’s go back and ask Madeleine Albright, 

who was Secretary of State in 1997, that never even had an email 

account, or let’s go back and ask, you know, Colin Powell, 

Condoleezza Rice, and me to provide all this information. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Regular order, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. I’m just telling you, it smells, it doesn’t 

smell right. 

And so I yield back. 

Mrs. 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 record-keeping, 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 emails 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 emails, 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 record-keeping, at least my materials would be there to 

help fill any gaps above and beyond the 90 to 95 percent of emails 

that were already in the system. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Well, I’m not an attorney, but I think Ms. 

Mills is a good attorney—— 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Regular order, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND [continuing]. And she never told you—— 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
409 

Ms. SANCHEZ. At this late hour, I—— 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. She never told—— 

Ms. SANCHEZ [continuing]. Insist that—— 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. She never told you—— 

Ms. SANCHEZ [continuing]. 4 minutes after regular 10 minutes of 

time—— 

Chairman GOWDY. The gentleman is—— 

Ms. SANCHEZ [continuing]. Should be cut off with questioning. 

Chairman GOWDY. The gentleman is out of time, just like almost 

every other member has been out of time. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Not 4 minutes out of time, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman GOWDY. Well, you’d be surprised. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Well, it’s a late hour—— 

Chairman GOWDY. The gentleman from California—— 

Ms. SANCHEZ [continuing]. And our witness has been here for 

more than 9 hours. 

Chairman GOWDY. And as soon as—— 

Ms. SANCHEZ. I think in the interests of brevity—— 

Chairman GOWDY. And as soon as the gentlelady finishes, I’ll 

recognize the next member. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that courtesy. 

Chairman GOWDY. The gentleman from California is recognized. 

Mr. 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 3:00 a.m. phone call from the committee room. 

In fact, your testimony has not only gone on longer than both of 

your prior testimonies to the House and Senate combined, but I’m, 

I don’t know if ‘‘pleased’’ is the right word, but I’m able to inform 

you that your testimony now has gone on longer than all of the 

other hearings that 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 were with 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 members of the panel who are 

inventing testimony for you or imagining conversations you’re having with your lawyer as well. 

As for your emails, I feel like channeling Bernie Sanders here tonight, 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 

emails, and it’s our chairman, who was asked on Fox News by 

Chris Wallace what your email 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 emails because I think it’s true of the 

investigation generally. For all the talk about your emails, what’s 

interesting to me is not a member here, either on the news or in 

leaked form or whatever, has said anything about the content of 

your emails that added any insight to what we already know. So 

it’s fascinating to me that for all of this talk, they have not pointed 

to a single thing in those emails of substance that alters our underVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:25 Apr 05, 2016 Jkt 098884 PO 00000 Frm 00411 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\B884P2.XXX B884P2

srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
410 

standing of what happened in Benghazi; that alters the conclusions 

of those seven or eight other investigations. 

And what’s true of your emails is true of this broader investiga- tion, 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 do 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 what 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 bet Mr. Chairman wishes he never 

got that call. 

So who was in the room? Well, Kevin McCarthy was in the room. 

There was nobody better situated to know why this committee was 

formed or why the Speaker changed his mind than the Speaker’s 

number two, 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 the 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 in isolation. It 

would be another if we didn’t have one of their own team, a GOP 

investigator, who’s 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’s 

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 a terrible 

abuse of our responsibility and our power, 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’d be happy to yield to my colleague, Mr. Cummings. 

Mr. 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’ve protected the reputaVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:25 Apr 05, 2016 Jkt 098884 PO 00000 Frm 00412 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\B884P2.XXX B884P2

srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
411 

tions of the people who come before our committee, be they Republican witnesses, be they Democrat or independent. The reason 

being, that I realize that there’s life after the hearing. And so often, 

Madam Secretary, what happens is people come before these hearings, their family is watching, colleagues watching. They are torn 

apart, and then, in many instances, we think to correct it 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, to Mr. Sullivan, and Ms. Abedin, 

when they talked about this night and what you did that night, in 

their transcribed interviews, all of them were basically brought to 

tears. And 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 says a lot. And I realize that you’ve 

gone through a lot, but the fact still remains that—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 quarterbacking about what could have been, what 

should have been done. You have laid it out. I think you have said 

you have—this has not been done perfectly. You wish you could do 

it another way. And then the statement that 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 that he’s talking about? We’re better than that. We 

are so much better. We are a better country, and we’re 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. 

Madam Secretary. 

Mrs. 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. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
412 

And I appreciate greatly what you said, Ranking Member Cummings. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much. 

Chairman 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. So, Adam, to 

answer your question is, no, I don’t regret it. I’m a better person 

for having learned more about the four people that we lost in 

Benghazi, and that’s why we signed up for it. 

And, with that, I’ll go to Mr. Pompeo. 

Mr. POMPEO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Schiff, you 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 as to 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 that the 

State Department and other government agencies may well not 

have provided those other committees the information they needed 

to complete their task. So you don’t need to speculate. 

One more administrative item. Mr. Westmoreland said there was 

a meeting between your counsel, Ms. Mills, and State Department 

regarding your emails. 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 that the record reflected that. 

Secretary Clinton, I have a few questions to ask you. We’ve 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, but 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 which you’ll be permitted to provide 

those answers because of the nature of the answers you’ll provide. 

These are yes-or-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 any Libyan rebels or militias or opposition to Qadhafi’s forces? 

Mrs. CLINTON. That was a very long question, and I think the 

answer is no. 

Mr. 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? 

Mrs. CLINTON. No. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
413 

Mr. 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 Qadhafi’s forces, Libyan rebels, or 

militias through a third party or country? 

Mrs. CLINTON. No. 

Mr. POMPEO. Did you ever consider the idea of using private security experts to arm the opposition? 

Mrs. CLINTON. Using private security? 

Mr. 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? 

Mrs. CLINTON. Not seriously, no. 

Mr. POMPEO. What does ‘‘not seriously’’ mean, ma’am? 

Mrs. CLINTON. Well, I think you’re referring to a reference in one 

of Sid Blumenthal’s emails. 

Mr. POMPEO. No, ma’am. I’m referring to a reference in your 

email. 

Mrs. CLINTON. Well, the answer is no. 

Mr. POMPEO. Ma’am, I’ll read you the email. 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? 

Mrs. CLINTON. It was not considered seriously. 

Mr. POMPEO. But you thought about it. You thought it might be 

both appropriate and lawful when you sent that note to Mr. Sullivan. 

Mrs. CLINTON. Well, I’m open to ideas, but that doesn’t mean 

that they’re either considered seriously or acted upon. 

Mr. POMPEO. Were there any further emails or discussion with 

respect to that issue of potentially arming private experts—or having private experts arm the Libyans? 

Mrs. CLINTON. Not that I’m aware of. 

Mr. 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? 

Mrs. CLINTON. That was one of the matters that was discussed 

with the Department of Defense, yes. 

Mr. POMPEO. And did you ask about what assets were positioned 

in place that they might be able to help? 

Mrs. CLINTON. Of course. That was part of the conversation from 

the very beginning. 

Mr. POMPEO. Did you ask about how long it might take them to 

arrive either in Tripoli or Benghazi? 

Mrs. CLINTON. Yes, we did. 

Mr. POMPEO. You earlier said today, a couple hours back, that 

there were no military resources that could have arrived in 

Benghazi in a reasonable time. That is your testimony from today. 

What was a reasonable time? 

Mrs. 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 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
414 

Annex was seriously addressed before the attack but then, obviously, implemented after. 

Mr. POMPEO. Yes, ma’am. But when the initial attack occurred, 

you had no idea how long the incidents would continue, did you? 

Mrs. CLINTON. It was over within an hour. 

Mr. 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? 

Mrs. 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. 

Mr. 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 the 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. 

Mrs. 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. 

Mr. POMPEO. Yes, ma’am, we will do that. And, in some cases, 

we have asked those questions. 

You talked earlier about Mr. Khattala, 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 am glad that we have pulled one of 

the terrorists involved in the murder of U.S. Government people on 

that night. 

When that attack took place, Mr. Khattala, according to the indictment from the Justice Department, Mr. Khattala and his folks 

removed documents from the temporary mission facility. Were you 

aware of that? 

Mrs. CLINTON. Yes, we later became aware that documents had 

been removed. But there were no classified documents at Benghazi. 

Mr. POMPEO. And how do you know that? 

Mrs. 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. 

Mr. POMPEO. Yes, ma’am. Do you know if there was sensitive information? 

Mrs. 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. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
415 

Mr. 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? 

Mrs. CLINTON. I think that 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. 

Mr. 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? 

Mrs. 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. 

Mr. POMPEO. Yes, ma’am. You are not supposed to have classified 

email on your private server either, and we—— 

Mrs. CLINTON. And I did not, Congressman. 

Mr. POMPEO. We are aware that sometimes classified material 

ends up in places where it ought not be. 

I want to go back to your statement that you said you didn’t ever 

seriously consider arming private security experts. Tell me why you 

ever considered it at all. 

Mrs. CLINTON. We considered a whole range of issues. We knew 

that the insurgents fighting Qadhafi needed support, and what 

they were provided was air support facilitated by the United 

States. The United States did not provide any private contractors 

to assist them. 

Mr. POMPEO. There was an email that was from Mr. Blumenthal 

and an email before that also discussed the same situation. Do you 

know who Marc Turi is? 

Mrs. CLINTON. No, I don’t recall that I know who that is. 

Mr. POMPEO. He was a private trafficker in weapons. He was 

working with Mr. Stevens and attempting to develop an authorization with the State Department so that he could in fact deliver 

those weapons into Libya. 

Does any of that ring a bell to you? 

Mrs. CLINTON. No, it does not. 

Mr. POMPEO. So you never saw the email that was from Mr. Stevens to—I think it went to Mr. Sullivan, where he says to Mr. 

Turi—this is Mr. Stevens. Now, he says to Mr. Turi, ‘‘Thank you 

for this information’’—information about his attempts to get authority to ship arms into Libya. He says, ‘‘Thank you for this information. I’ll keep it in mind and share it with my colleagues in 

Washington. Regards, Chris’’—or, actually, ‘‘Regards, Chris Stevens.’’ 

Mrs. CLINTON. I don’t know anything about that specifically. I do 

know that you’re referring to a document, and if you are, could you 

tell us what tab it’s at? 

Mr. POMPEO. Yes, ma’am. I am not certain it is in there as a tab, 

but I am happy to provide it to you. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Chairman, regular order. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
416 

Mrs. CLINTON. Well, it’s a little difficult to answer questions 

about documents—— 

Mr. POMPEO. Yes, ma’am. 

Mrs. CLINTON [continuing]. I don’t have, but I can answer you. 

Whatever was considered, either out of politeness or out of interest, there was not any action taken, so far as I know. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Chairman, regular order. 

Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Chairman, may I just have 60 more seconds? 

Chairman Gowdy. Yes. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Chairman, the last Republican questioner 

went over by 4 minutes. And given that we are allowed 10 minutes 

of questioning each and the late hour and the fact that we are a 

minute beyond testimony already, I think that it is appropriate to 

ask for regular order and that questioning be closed for this particular member of the panel. 

Chairman GOWDY. The gentleman is recognized for 60 seconds. 

Mr. POMPEO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to come back to one issue we talked about a couple of 

hours back about accountability. You said that you didn’t have the 

authority, lawful authority, to terminate any employees. Is that 

correct? 

Mrs. CLINTON. That is correct. And—— 

Mr. POMPEO. Okay. 

Mrs. CLINTON [continuing]. It is because of the laws and the regulations of our government, Congressman. 

Mr. POMPEO. Did you have the authority to provide a counseling 

statement to any employee? 

Mrs. CLINTON. I do not know what you’re referring to. 

Mr. 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? 

Mrs. CLINTON. Well, I think it was pretty well known that the 

ARB did not think they did their job. 

Mr. POMPEO. Yes, ma’am. 

Mrs. CLINTON. 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. 

Mr. POMPEO. I will just ask—— 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Chairman, regular order. 

Mr. POMPEO [continuing]. Just two yes-or-no questions. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Sixty seconds has already elapsed. I believe the 

chairman granted—— 

Mr. POMPEO. I will wait for the next round. 

Ms. SANCHEZ [continuing]. 60 additional seconds. 

Mr. POMPEO. I yield back. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, before my time starts, he just 

said something that I just want to make sure we are clear. He just 

said he is going to wait for his next round. I thought we were kind 

of closing down here. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Parliamentary inquiry. How late are we going tonight? 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
417 

Chairman GOWDY. The gentleman is recognized to ask two yesor-no questions. 

Mr. 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 incidents of 

September 11, 2012? 

Mrs. 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. 

Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Chairman GOWDY. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The chair will now recognize the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. 

Cummings. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much. 

I know the hour is late, but, Madam Secretary, I need to go back 

to something, the ARB. 

You know, maybe it is because I am getting older and care about 

legacy, reputation, and that kind of thing, but there is an 83-yearold gentleman named Ambassador Pickering. And I have heard a 

lot of testimony. I was there for his deposition, or transcribed interview—I don’t remember which it was—and then his testimony before the Oversight Committee. And when he talked about his appointment to the ARB, he talked about what an honor it was. And 

I think the thing that bothers me about a lot of this that has gone 

on is that, when there have been attacks on the ARB, it’s as if, I 

mean, that is like attacking him. And at 83 years old, I refuse to 

sit here and let that go by. 

And I remember listening to him, and I said to myself, you know, 

this is the kind of guy that we all ought to honor, serving under 

presidents for 40 years, Democrat and Republican, high up on the 

chain with regard to integrity. I mean, I don’t even see how you 

even attack this guy, all right? 

And one of the things he said in his testimony, he said—you appointed him, and he talked about the appointment. And I quote 

from his June 4 testimony. He said, ‘‘Chris Stevens worked for me 

as my special assistant for 2 years when I was Under Secretary of 

State. This was not any kind of vendetta, but I felt that Chris gave 

me 2 wonderful years of his life in supporting me in very difficult 

circumstances and that I owed him, his family, and the families of 

the other people who died the best possible report we could put together.’’ And he went on and said some other things that were so 

powerful. 

And then when I hear the implications of people attacking the 

report, talking about he wasn’t independent or they weren’t independent, it is like an attack against him. And I could say the same 

thing about Admiral Mullen. 

And I just want you to tell us about why you picked the folks 

that you picked. And, by the way, it is done by law. I mean, that 

is what—— 

Mrs. CLINTON. Right. 

Mr. CUMMINGS [continuing]. You are supposed to do. The law 

says you are supposed to pick these people. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
418 

Mrs. CLINTON. That’s right. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. And so why don’t you tell us how you picked 

them? Were you looking for a ‘‘yes’’ report? I mean, what were you 

looking for? 

Mrs. CLINTON. Well, Congressman, I greatly appreciate your 

strong words of commendation on behalf of both Ambassador Pickering and Admiral Mullen. 

You’re right, the statute is very clear: The Secretary of State 

picks four of the five members of the Accountability Review Board. 

As I said earlier today, there have been 19 Accountability Review 

Board reports, and I think myself and prior secretaries have been 

very fortunate that they could call on distinguished Americans with 

long records of service to perform this very important task. 

When I was thinking about who has the integrity, the independence, the experience to give us an unvarnished look at what happened, the first person I thought of was Ambassador Tom Pickering. 

He, 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. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Do you need some water, Madam Secretary? 

Chairman GOWDY. Would you like us to take a 60-second, 2- 

minute break? 

Mrs. CLINTON. No. Let me grab a lozenge. 

So, Congressman, I had the utmost confidence in both of them. 

Mr. 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 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
419 

illegal weapons program in Libya has been—and this is according 

to him—investigated by the House Intelligence Committee and debunked. That is what Speaker Boehner said about this illicit weapons transfer situation. 

Do you want us to hold up, Madam? 

Mrs. CLINTON. No. Go right ahead. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Okay. 

And so, going back, today—so these questions, again, were 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 that she approved or denied requests for security 

in Benghazi. 

And as the day has dragged on, the Select Committee’s costs has 

raised up to $4.8 million. That’s taxpayer dollars, by the way. 

Two weeks ago, the State Department informed the Select Committee that it had spent $14 million responding to requests relating 

to Benghazi over the past three years. This does not include the 

costs incurred over the past three years by other Federal agencies, 

such as the Department of Defense. In a letter to Congress on 

March 11, 2014, the Defense Department estimated that the total 

cost it has expended during previous congressional reviews ran 

into, ‘‘the millions of dollars.’’ 

So that is at least $20 million right there. And that is a conservative estimate because it does not include the cost of the seven previous investigations by congressional committees. When I think 

about that amount, $20 million, $20 million, it pains me to imagine 

what that money could have done. 

I don’t want anyone to mistake what I am saying. Of course we 

needed to know what happened in Benghazi so we could take action to help prevent it in the future. And I have personally investigated this. We compiled an entire database of information on our 

web site about a year ago. We put together a 133-page compendium. We released a new report this week with the results of 54 

interviews. 

And I want all of those transcripts to be made public to the 

American people after the appropriate redactions. They ought to be 

released. I want the American people to see every word—of course, 

with appropriate redactions, because I don’t want anybody accusing 

me of saying otherwise. 

But, finally, my point is this. Instead of spending this entire $20 

million on these eight investigations, we could have dedicated at 

least some part of those funds to actually increasing security for 

our diplomats overseas. Even if it were just a fraction of that 

amount, I can’t help but wonder how many consulates could have 

been improved, how many embassies could have been better protected, and how many more of our patriotic American diplomats 

would be safer today. 

And so, with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Chairman GOWDY. The gentleman yields back. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
420 

Madam Secretary, I couldn’t help but think, when he was using the $20 million figure, that is two more ISIS fighters that we could 

have paid for. I refuse to put a price tag on the lives of four Americans. 

Your figure of $20 million is wrong, Mr. Cummings, and that is 

not what the State Department told us. But I don’t care what the 

figure is; there is no price tag when it comes to justice for four people who gave their lives for this country. 

Madam Secretary, with respect to the ARB, I want to ask you 

this. If you were investigating Benghazi or what happened in 

Benghazi and there was an author of an email three months to the 

day—three months to the day—from when our four fellow Americans were killed, the author of the email says, ‘‘anti-American demonstration,’’ ‘‘looking for Americans to attack,’’ ‘‘game-changer,’’ 

‘‘soft target,’’ ‘‘no continuity,’’ ‘‘the cost to continue to do business 

there may become challenging,’’ would you want to talk to the author of that email if you were investigating Benghazi? 

Mrs. 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—— 

Chairman GOWDY. I don’t want—— 

Mrs. CLINTON [continuing]. Of the dangerous situation in Libya. 

Chairman 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 email. 

Mrs. CLINTON. And, as you just said, Mr. Chairman, the ARB 

did. 

Chairman 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 is my point. 

My point is the ARB did some good things. That is why our first 

two hearings were on making sure the recommendations by the 

ARB were actually implemented. 

But when the author of that email is going to 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 is a fact witness. 

Whether she is good or bad, the author of that email has a right 

for Congress to question them. I mean, that is 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 Ms. Mills 

saying, ‘‘Don’t send Charlene Lamb before Congress. She is not 

going to make a good witness.’’ 

And I don’t doubt that there is not a transcript from any of the 

ARB interviews. And you may say, well, why does that matter? If 

you are going to write a report and you want to write a report with 

specificity and particularity, you have to cite the transcript. And I 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
421 

can’t tell you a single question that was asked of a single ARB witness because there is no transcript. 

So my point is not that the ARB did a bad job or a good job. My 

point is, from the standpoint of a serious investigation, it was an 

inadequate job. 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 of the previous investigations that Congress and the ARB 

had done. Did any of those previous congressional investigations or 

the ARB have access to your emails? 

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. Chairman, first of all, the witness you are referring to did appear before Congress—— 

Chairman GOWDY. That was not my point. My point—— 

Mrs. CLINTON. Well, but your implication was that that witness 

was stopped from going to Congress. And—— 

Chairman GOWDY. No, she—— 

Mrs. CLINTON [continuing]. In fact, that did not happen, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Chairman GOWDY. No, she definitely came. No, that is not my 

implication. My implication is the co-chair of what you call an independent Accountability Review Board was calling someone he was 

supposed to be investigating to say, ‘‘Please don’t send that witness 

to Congress. They are not going to show up well.’’ That is my point. 

My point is, how could you consider that to be—I mean—— 

Mrs. CLINTON. Well, look—— 

Chairman GOWDY [continuing]. Have you ever heard of a judge 

calling the DA—— 

Mrs. CLINTON [continuing]. You know, Mr. Chairman—— 

Chairman GOWDY [continuing]. Or the defense attorney and saying, ‘‘Don’t call that witness’’? 

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. Chairman, I really don’t care what you all say 

about me; it doesn’t bother me a bit. I do care a lot about what 

you’re implying about Admiral Mullen, and I will not sit here and 

hear that. Admiral—— 

Chairman GOWDY. Well, ma’am—— 

Mrs. CLINTON [continuing]. Mullen served this country with 

great distinction. He served the State Department with great distinction in being the co-chair of the Accountability Review Board. 

And I think his work speaks for itself. And I’m sorry that—— 

Chairman GOWDY. Well, let me ask you about his work. 

Mrs. CLINTON [continuing]. I’m sorry that the important work 

that was done by that board is held in such low regard by some 

members of this committee, and I deeply regret it. 

Chairman GOWDY. Are you doubting that he placed a phone call? 

Is that the purpose of what you are saying? 

Mrs. CLINTON. I know nothing about the phone call. 

Chairman GOWDY. Well, I do because he testified before another 

congressional committee. He admits it was a mistake, Madam Secretary. I don’t know why you can’t. 

Mrs. CLINTON. Well—— 

Chairman GOWDY. He admits it was a mistake to call and say, 

‘‘Don’t send a fact witness before a congressional committee.’’ 

Mrs. CLINTON. Well, I think that shows—— 

Chairman GOWDY. It doesn’t mean he is a bad person. It just 

means that when you hold up the ARB as independent and your 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
422 

chief of staff picked most of the folks on it—Patrick Kennedy had 

a role in picking some of the folks on the ARB despite the fact that 

some people think Patrick Kennedy may have also been involved 

in approving or not approving—if you need to read a note from 

your lawyer, you are welcome to, Madam Secretary. 

Mrs. CLINTON. No. It’s just hard to sit here listening to the comments you’re making about someone that I consider to be a great 

American. If he said he made a mistake, that’s even more proof of 

what a fine gentleman he is and what a great public servant he’s 

been. It doesn’t in any way, what you’re saying, impugn his service 

for 40 years and certainly not his service on the Accountability Review Board. 

I can’t help it, Mr. Chairman, that you all don’t like the findings 

of the Accountability Review Board. 

Chairman GOWDY. Ma’am, we had two hearings—— 

Mrs. CLINTON. I can’t help it that you don’t like the findings of 

all the other congressional committees. 

Chairman GOWDY. We had two hearings where we did nothing 

but discuss the implementation of the ARB findings, Madam Secretary. So, with all due respect, we have had more hearings about 

the ARB findings than we have with you. So don’t tell me that we 

don’t care about the ARB. We had two hearings. 

My point is this. The ARB nor the previous congressional investigations had access to your emails, did they? 

Mrs. CLINTON. I don’t know what they had access to. I know 

that, during the time I was at the State Department, there was 

certainly a great effort to respond to your predecessor, Congressman Issa’s inquiries. And many thousands of pages of information 

was conveyed to the Congress. And I know that the State Department has worked diligently and persistently to try to respond to 

the many requests that it has received. And I think that, given the 

pressure and the stress of business they have been under, they 

have, you know, performed as well as they could. 

So you will be getting and, in fact, the entire world will be getting all of my emails, because they are all going to be public, and 

you will be able to read them along with everybody else. 

Chairman GOWDY. Madam Secretary, that actually was not my 

question. My question was whether or not the previous congressional committees and ARB had access to your emails. That was 

my question. 

Mrs. CLINTON. Ninety to 95 percent of my work-related emails 

were in the State system. If they wanted to see them, they would 

certainly have been able to do so. 

Chairman GOWDY. You know what? That is maybe the tenth 

time you have cited that figure today. 

Mrs. CLINTON. It is. 

Chairman GOWDY. And I have not heard anyone other than you 

ever cite that figure. Who told you that 90 to 95 percent of your 

emails were in the State Department system? Who told you that? 

Mrs. CLINTON. We learned that from the State Department in 

their analysis of the emails that were already on the system. We 

were trying to help them close some gaps that they had. But they 

already—— 

Chairman GOWDY. Can you provide me—— 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
423 

Mrs. CLINTON. They already—— 

Chairman GOWDY. Can you provide me with a name? Because 

when I asked the State Department about 10 days ago, what is the 

source of that figure, they shrugged their shoulders. 

Mrs. CLINTON. Well, you can look for the state.gov addresses, and 

they certainly pop up—— 

Chairman GOWDY. Right. And the inspector general report, 

Madam Secretary, the inspector general report—which you can’t 

argue by perfect analogy, but you can certainly extrapolate—the inspector general report found that less than 1 percent—less than 1 

percent—of State Department emails, record emails, were captured. 

So they give a number of less than 1 percent, and you give a 

number of 90 percent. 

Mrs. CLINTON. Well, I don’t know what you are referring to. I can 

only speak about my emails, my work-related emails, and—— 

Chairman GOWDY. Well, let’s talk about your work-related 

emails. We asked for them last year, and the State Department 

gave us eight. If they had 90 percent of yours, why did we only get 

eight? 

Mrs. CLINTON. Well, I don’t know initially what you asked for, 

but I know that they tried to be responsive. Ninety to 95 percent 

of them were on state.gov. I understand that the committee broadened the scope of their request, and I think that, in response, the 

State Department has been trying to provide what you have requested. 

In the meantime, they are going through the process of making 

all of my emails public. 

Chairman GOWDY. You think our first request—there were only 

eight emails responsive to our first request? 

Mrs. CLINTON. I can’t speak to it. I believe your—— 

Chairman GOWDY. I can—— 

Mrs. CLINTON [continuing]. First request was for Benghazi, and 

I believe that the State Department did a diligent search. Then I 

believe you expanded it to Libya and weapons and maybe a few 

other terms, and I believe they conducted a diligent—— 

Chairman GOWDY. Well, our jurisdiction hasn’t grown, Madam 

Secretary. Our jurisdiction is the same thing it was. 

Let me ask you this. You say that you turned over everything. 

I don’t get a chance to watch you a lot on television, but when I 

see you are interviewed, you make a point of saying, ‘‘I turned over 

everything.’’ 

Mrs. CLINTON. All my work-related emails, yes. 

Chairman GOWDY. How do you know that? 

Mrs. CLINTON. I know that because there was an exhaustive 

search done under the supervision of my attorneys, and that is exactly the outcome. We turned over every work-related email. 

In fact, as somebody referred to earlier, we turned over too 

many. The State Department and the National Archives said there 

were 1,246 out of the 30,000-plus that they have already determined did not need to be turned over. 

Chairman GOWDY. And you have a—— 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Regular order, Mr. Chairman. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
424 

Chairman GOWDY [continuing]. Really good groups of attorneys, 

which makes me wonder how they missed 15 of them. 

Mrs. CLINTON. Well, if you are talking about Mr. Blumenthal, 

which I assume you are, he had some that I didn’t have, and I had 

some that he didn’t have. And I was under no obligation to make 

any of his emails available unless I decided they were work-related. 

And the ones that I decided that were work-related I forwarded to 

the state.gov accounts of the people with whom I worked. 

Chairman GOWDY. Madam Secretary, is there any question that 

the 15 that James Cole turned over to us were work-related? There 

is no ambiguity about that. They were work-related. 

Mrs. CLINTON. They were from a personal friend, not any official 

government—not any government official. And they were, I determined on the basis of looking at them, what I thought was workrelated and what wasn’t. And some I didn’t even have time to read, 

Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman GOWDY. So are you telling me the 15—— 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Chairman, regular order. 

Chairman GOWDY. Are you telling me that the 15—— 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman GOWDY. I will tell the gentlelady from California that 

I am going to take a little bit extra time just like everybody else 

has and that we can either do it this round—— 

Ms. SANCHEZ. May I—— 

Chairman GOWDY. We can either do it this round or we can do 

it next round. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. May I make a simple inquiry about how many 

more minutes the chairman plans? 

Chairman GOWDY. The fewer the interruptions, the quicker I can 

get done. I will put it to you that way. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Okay. 

Chairman GOWDY. How’s that? 

Ms. SANCHEZ. I am just being mindful of the time. 

Chairman GOWDY. My question to you on the 15 is, did your lawyers find them and decide that they weren’t work-related or did 

they not find them? 

Mrs. CLINTON. Well, I don’t know why he had emails I didn’t, 

and I don’t know why apparently I had emails he didn’t. And all 

I can tell you is that I turned over every work-related email in my 

possession. 

Chairman GOWDY. All right. 

I am going to make two more observations, and then we’re going 

to call it a night. 

The first observation that I would make is that when you speak 

to the public, you say, ‘‘I turned over everything.’’ That is, for the 

most part, a direct quote. When you have talked to the public, you 

say, ‘‘I turned over everything.’’ 

When you talk to the court, you say, ‘‘While I do not know what 

information may be responsive for purposes of this lawsuit, I have 

directed that all my emails on clintonemail.com in my custody that 

were or potentially were Federal records be provided to the Department of State, and, on information and belief, that was done.’’ 

Why the different explanation depending on who you are talking 

to? 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
425 

Mrs. CLINTON. Well, one is a shorthand, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman GOWDY. Well, why not just tell the court, ‘‘I turned 

over everything’’? 

Mrs. CLINTON. Well, you know how lawyers are. They use more 

words, perhaps, than they need. 

Chairman GOWDY. Trust me, I know that. And they charge you 

for every one of them. 

Mrs. CLINTON. Yes. I’m well aware of that, Mr. Chairman. And 

the clock is ticking. 

Chairman GOWDY. Well, one more. One more. And I will pay Mr. 

Kendall’s fee for the last question. How’s that? 

Mrs. CLINTON. Oh, I don’t think you want to do that, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman GOWDY. I probably can’t do it. 

You see my point, though? You are very definitive when you are 

talking to the American people that you turned over everything. 

Mrs. CLINTON. That’s right. 

Chairman GOWDY. But there are those kind of lawyerly fudge 

words when you are talking to court, ‘‘on information and belief.’’ 

Mrs. CLINTON. Well—— 

Chairman GOWDY. And the reality is, even tonight, you cannot 

tell us that you turned over everything, because you didn’t think 

you missed the 15. 

Mrs. CLINTON. Well, I didn’t have them. I turned over everything 

I had. Everything I had—— 

Chairman GOWDY. Which means the system you had—— 

Mrs. CLINTON [continuing]. Has been turned over to the State 

Department. 

Chairman GOWDY [continuing]. Somehow missed those 15. 

Mrs. CLINTON. Well—— 

Chairman GOWDY. Last question on your system. Mr. Cummings 

said that your email arrangement was inappropriate. I think the 

President may have said it was a mistake. You have said that it 

was a mistake. 

My question to you, Madam Secretary, is, was it a mistake for 

the four years that you had that email arrangement? Was it a mistake for the almost two years that you kept the public record to 

yourself? Or has it manifested itself as a mistake in just the last 

six months? 

Mrs. CLINTON. Well, since I believed that all of my work-related 

emails to dot-gov accounts were being captured and preserved, it 

wasn’t until I was asked to help the State Department to fill in 

what they saw as some recordkeeping gaps, not just with me but 

with others. 

I did the best I could during those four years and thought that 

everything that I was emailing that was work-related was being 

preserved. 

Chairman GOWDY. If you can find the source for the 90 to 95 percent, I would be grateful for it, and we would probably have fewer 

questions. If there is a source that you can provide that 90 to 95 

percent were on the State Department system, then I will know 

that I need to ask the State Department what took them so long. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
426 

Because I am just telling you, Madam Secretary, I got eight 

emails the first time I asked, and now I have over 1,500. So there 

is some disconnect there. 

Mrs. CLINTON. Well, Mr. Chairman, I think that is a fair question. And I’m not at the State Department any longer, but I do 

want to defend them. 

They are under the most extraordinary pressure to answer congressional inquiries. I saw a figure recently that FOIA requests 

have jumped something like 300 percent. They don’t have the resources; they don’t have the personnel. They take their responsibility of reading every single line and, as Ranking Member Cummings reminded us, having to redact personal information, personnel information. 

Obviously, they take it very seriously. I think they are doing the 

best they can, and I know that they have tried to be responsive to 

you and to the many other requests that have come their way. 

Chairman GOWDY. Well, Madam Secretary, on behalf of all of us, 

we want to thank you for your patience and for your willingness 

to come. And you have been willing to come in the past, as I noted 

in my opening, and we appreciate it. 

And, with that, we will be adjourned. 

Mrs. CLINTON. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 9:00 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

Æ 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING