Get PJ Media on your Apple

The PJ Tatler

by
Rick Moran

Bio

May 4, 2014 - 2:10 pm

South Carolina Rep. Trey Gowdy says that the White House is hiding Benghazi documents and he has the evidence to prove it.

Gowdy told Fox News host Greta Van Susteren:

“I have evidence that, not only are they hiding it, there is an intent to hide it,” Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) told Greta van Susteren on FOX News. “I can’t disclose that evidence yet, but I have evidence that there was a systematic, intentional decision to withhold certain documents from Congress. And we’re just sick of it. So we’re gonna have him come explain why we’re getting documents 20 months late.”

“If you want to have Greg Hicks and the station chief from Tripoli and Hillary Clinton all sitting at the same table, you need to have a committee that has the power to do that. And a select committee would have that power,” Gowdy said on Friday.

Gowdy is being considered to chair the upcoming select committee that will investigate the Benghazi attacks.

Whichever Republican is chosen, Democrats may not be joining them on the committee. California Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff called on Democrats to boycott the hearings, calling them “a colossal waste of time.”

King, speaking afterward with Fox News, said this would be a “mistake” for Democrats as it would show they “cannot defend the administration.”

“If Democrats boycott this committee, refuse to take part, the American people are going to conclude, and I think quite rightly, that they feel they have something to hide,” King said.

Schiff, who called the select committee a “tremendous red herring,” acknowledged he doesn’t know what Democratic leadership will decide.

Fox News was told on Friday that the panel would be bipartisan. Schiff’s comments, though, raise the prospect that his party could try to define the committee as a political vessel by sitting it out. The remarks reflect how the committee, which has not yet been formally approved, already is a political football. It would begin its investigative work in the heat of the midterm election season, poised to level damaging charges against the Obama administration at a sensitive time.

Leading Republicans were adamant that the committee is vital to get to the bottom of what happened in the days and weeks following the Sept. 11, 2012, attack which killed four Americans, including a U.S. ambassador.

The tipping point for those, like Boehner, who were hesitant about forming a select committee, was the release of an email that showed a White House adviser reviewing talking points for then-U.S. ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice. The email stressed the role of protests over an anti-Islam video — which is the faulty explanation Rice went on to use to describe the Benghazi attack’s origin on Sunday news shows after the tragedy.

The White House maintains that email referenced protests elsewhere in the Middle East and Africa, but Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., said that claim “doesn’t pass the laugh test.”

She told “Fox News Sunday” the email shows the need for a select committee. Ayotte said there still hasn’t been a clear explanation of why Rice connected the attack to a video.

“The video story clearly came from the White House,” she said, calling it a “political explanation leading up to an election.”

“This did not fit their narrative,” Ayotte said.

The Democrats are going to rely on the media to run interference for them. The narrative being developed was perfectly captured by the former campaign bus driver and National Security spokesman Tommy Vietor, who remarked to Bret Baier, “Dude, it was, like, two years ago.”

The more dangerous the threat, the more dismissive must be the response. You don’t get much more dismissive than letting out a yawn and claiming the bombshell is old news.

Gowdy has been mentioned as a possible chair for the select committee He would be a good choice, mostly because he knows the issues surrounding Benghazi and has been pretty effective on the Sunday shows in articulating a GOP response.

But is he too partisan? I guess if the Democrats boycott, the Republicans could put the most partisan member in the chair and it wouldn’t make much difference.

Rick Moran is PJ Media's Chicago editor and Blog editor at The American Thinker. He is also host of the"RINO Hour of Power" on Blog Talk Radio. His own blog is Right Wing Nut House.

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
"But is he too partisan?"
=======================

Stupid question - there is nothing partisan about the truth.

24 weeks ago
24 weeks ago Link To Comment
"But is he too partisan?"

What is the rationale for the "too partisan" speculation at this point? Would it be "too partisan" to seek the full truth and expose the miscreants for the shameless liars that they are? Might it be "too partisan" to expose a bunch of corrupt and contemptible Democrats for the repulsive actors that they really are? As if the Democrats ever worried about being "too partisan".

"Too partisan". Maybe John McCain or Susan Collins would be ideal for the position so that nobody will get their feelings hurt.
24 weeks ago
24 weeks ago Link To Comment
“If Democrats boycott this committee, refuse to take part, the American people are going to conclude, and I think quite rightly, that they feel they have something to hide,” King said.

Right- apparently King lives in some sort of alternate universe where the press and media aren't serving the treasonous role of propaganda ministry for the murderous thieves and liars in the Administration and State Department. A compliant press and media will shape what the American people "think" and if it is that the Benghazi mess is a desperate attempt by jealous Republicans and racist TEA Party Bigots to take down the most transparent *snicker* Administration in world history then that is exactly what the majority of the American people will think despite what the facts actually say.

Boycotting any committee enables the Democrats to say through the press and media that it is nothing more than a partisan witch hunt.
24 weeks ago
24 weeks ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (57)
All Comments   (57)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
A South Carolina hero is called a Gamecock.
That little B@$tard Gowdy is the very definition.
They gave the British a whoopin'. Thy gave the yankees a whoopin', until the very end.
Let a few lengths of lead off Mr. Gowdy, and watch him amaze us.
24 weeks ago
24 weeks ago Link To Comment
Broader story is WHAT WERE WE DOING THERE ANYWAY!
Running weapons to AQ and the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria. Outrageous... now let the public know!
http://tcsnews.com/exclusive-obamas-military-contracting-taliban-heroin-smugglers-afghanistan/
24 weeks ago
24 weeks ago Link To Comment
now, I like Trey Gowdy, and I want him to succeed

so he has to STOP THE THEATRICS

stop talking about what he has

and get a decent haircut
24 weeks ago
24 weeks ago Link To Comment
I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks that about his hair.

As for the threatrics, he's an attorney and many (not all) attorneys have a flair for the threatrics.
24 weeks ago
24 weeks ago Link To Comment
Yeah, 'cause Alphonse D'Amato was so boring and dull that he exposed tons of Clinton crime, and noone noticed.
I want a right B@$tard chairing that committee.
Hair or no.
24 weeks ago
24 weeks ago Link To Comment
Why are we helping a country whose people kill an American ambassador over a stupid you tube video?
24 weeks ago
24 weeks ago Link To Comment
If you think the video had anything to do with it, you don't know enough to have an opinion on the subject.

24 weeks ago
24 weeks ago Link To Comment
Dude, that's not why he was killed!!!

24 weeks ago
24 weeks ago Link To Comment
The Democrats might want to think twice about painting the issue as a partisan one. Do they really want to tar the entire party with it?
24 weeks ago
24 weeks ago Link To Comment
Of course they're hiding documents/evidence. Wouldn't you if you knew the real story?
24 weeks ago
24 weeks ago Link To Comment
Settle down guys. I'm sure this won't be like the last time they hyped you up about Benghazi: It's just about to break! Srsly gais vote for #BenghazzZZZzZzi! #treason! #save the #republic(ans)!. Or the time before that when nothing came of it. Or the time before that... or...

I guess my point is, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — twice? thrice? more? — shame on the grassy knoll shooter, I mean, Benghazi!
24 weeks ago
24 weeks ago Link To Comment
Hasn't gone away though, has it? I'm sure this won't be like the last time Benghazi was dismissed ...
24 weeks ago
24 weeks ago Link To Comment
It's time that Republicans answer every accusation of partisanship head on. If elections have consequences as Obama keeps telling everyone, then one of the consequences of duly elected Republican congressmen and senators is that they get to run and staff certain committees. And they get to act within them as they feel their constituencies would want them to. Partisan? So what if it is? Do non Democrats lose all rights to ask questions just because their petulant boy king was installed in the white house?
24 weeks ago
24 weeks ago Link To Comment
Indeed. Benghazi is a partisan issue. See what happens when Democrats are in charge.
24 weeks ago
24 weeks ago Link To Comment
Tou-frikken-che!
24 weeks ago
24 weeks ago Link To Comment
Not a very flattering photo. Obama may try to ridicule him that way. The current administration is all for itself.
24 weeks ago
24 weeks ago Link To Comment
MAYBE THE DECISION TO MISLEAD THE PUBLIC ABOUT BENGHAZI DIDN'T COME FROM THE WHITE HOUSE.
Maybe it came from Chicago and Obama's re-election committee.
24 weeks ago
24 weeks ago Link To Comment
1 2 3 Next View All