Benghazi investigator: More hearings to come

WASHINGTON–The chairman of the House Select Committee on Benghazi defended the panel’s ongoing investigation on Wednesday and vowed to continue well into next year.

“We are going to keep asking questions,” said Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., a former prosecutor who is leading the investigation into the 2012 terrorist attacks that killed four Americans, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens. “We will have hearings in January, February, March, and until there is a full understanding of what happened in Benghazi.”

Gowdy’s remarks during the panel’s second public proceeding ensure the investigation will stretch into the presidential campaign season next year. High-profile hearings likely will include an appearance from former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the Democrat’s presumed presidential nominee, who was leading the State Department when the Benghazi attacks occurred.

Democrats insist the relevant Benghazi questions already have been answered and Republicans are on a political witch hunt aimed at destroying Clinton. The former first lady was barely mentioned during the first two public hearings, which focused on efforts to secure U.S. diplomatic facilities abroad. But that likely means the most controversial aspects of the investigation are still to come.

Gowdy acknowledged some on both sides of the aisle say all questions are answered, but he said some of those same people also said Benghazi never should have been investigated in the first place. He said the State Department continues to turn over documents of interest to the committee.

In his opening statement, Gowdy read from the government court filing against alleged attack mastermind Ahmed Abu Khattala, in which the government claims he was part of an organized terrorist plot using sophisticated weapons. “We should not move on until there is a complete understanding of why the official position of our government is so different today than it was in the days and weeks after Benghazi.”

Gowdy also questioned what mission U.S. personnel were carrying out in Benghazi, why the State Department denied requests for additional security, and why the American people were told special precautions had been taken for the 9/11 anniversary, even though some facilities remained highly vulnerable.

Today’s proceeding covered many of the same topics discussed in the first hearing three months ago, including the same State Department witness, Greg Starr, assistant secretary of diplomatic security. Starr, who said Congress has supplied almost $1 billion for diplomatic security upgrades since the attacks, insisted the State Department is fully implementing the Accountability Review Board recommendations.

Several lawmakers pressed Starr on why U.S. personnel remained in Benghazi in a deteriorating situation, saying that’s the question they hear most from their constituents. Starr, who said it was a “reasonable question,” maintained he was not the person to ask and suggested the committee interview Anne Patterson, who in 2012 was the U.S. Ambassador to Egypt and the highest-ranking member of the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs.

After the hearing Gowdy, wouldn’t commit to summoning Patterson, but he did indicate he would bring in Clinton, who was not officially interviewed by the Accountability Review Board. Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., the committee’s ranking member, said he doesn’t think interviewing Clinton is necessary.

Cummings said the hearing raised “one or two” questions that may need to be addressed “in a bipartisan way.” He said the problem isn’t the lack of answers as much as some Republicans not liking the answers they’re receiving.

Cummings said Democrats on the panel will meet with Gowdy and House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, on Thursday to discuss implementing committee rules—he said there are none—and a deadline for completing the investigation.

Gowdy said future hearings likely will focus on what U.S. policy was “worth accepting the escalating violence” in Benghazi and the administration’s response after the attack. He said it doesn’t make sense that administration officials would edit out the word terrorism from post-attack talking points “when terrorist is the very word you use in the indictment.”