Investigator: Threat in Benghazi no surprise

WASHINGTON—A State Department under secretary used a made-up designation for the U.S. facility attacked in Benghazi, Libya, to skirt security standards that would have prevented Americans from being there, according to congressional testimony on Wednesday.

The revelation came at the House Select Committee on Benghazi’s first public hearing, four months after House Republicans voted to form the panel. Seven Republicans and five Democrats are investigating what happened before, during, and after the 2012 attacks that killed four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens.

Wednesday’s hearing focused on the recommendations of the Accountability Review Board (ARB)—a State Department-commissioned report issued in December 2012—including why the Benghazi facility’s security was so porous and why Americans needed to be there. Rep. Peter Roskam, R-Ill., asked witness Todd Keil, a former Department of Homeland Security official, how to define a “special mission compound,” the name assigned to the facility in Benghazi.

“I don’t know,” said Keil, a member of the independent panel on best practices, which investigated Benghazi. “Under Secretary [Patrick] Kennedy made up that term in order to avoid the OSPB [Overseas Security Policy Board] security standards.”

Protocol requires State Department facilities to meet basic security standards for U.S. personnel to be present. The unusual classification is apparently why Americans were there on Sept. 11, 2012, when militants launched an attack.

“It’s unacceptable,” Rep. Mike Pompeo, R-Kan., told me after the hearing. “They deviated from a process, made up a name, and basically abrogated all the rules.”

According to the State Department’s lone witness, Greg Starr, assistant secretary for diplomatic security, the same scenario could unfold again. He said it’s his responsibility to determine whether or not U.S. personnel can be present in a facility that does not meet guidelines and cited a recent example of denying such a request. Republicans said that’s not enough, because future individuals in his position might not exercise the same judgement. Pompeo told me if the State Department does not enact a more robust waiver process, Congress may consider a law that would force the issue.

Democrats have accused Republicans of political motivations in their investigation of the Benghazi terrorist attacks, which occurred while potential presidential candidate Hillary Clinton was secretary of state. Democrats say all Benghazi questions have been answered, but after Wednesday’s proceeding, Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., the panel’s top Democrat, called the hearings important: “Out of these hearings may come some more recommendations, even above what the ARB and the special panel has put forth.”

The ARB submitted 29 recommendations in the wake of the Benghazi attacks. Starr said the State Department has implemented 22 of them and the other seven are in process, prompting Cummings to push for a deadline.

The independent panel on best practices offered 40 recommendations, but the State Department declined to adopt two of them, including what Keil identified as the most important one: a new under secretary position focused on diplomatic security. Starr, whose position is one level below an under secretary, insisted he is that person and has direct access to current Secretary of State John Kerry.

Despite Starr’s assurances, Keil criticized the State Department for continuing to use a “pre-Benghazi” mentality with its diplomatic security around the world. “Now’s the time,” he said. “Clear the smoke, remove the mirrors.”

Keil also said the ARB was not independent, because co-chairman Mike Mullen admitted to giving Clinton’s chief of staff, Cheryl Mills, a "heads-up" phone call about a witness that might reflect badly on the agency: “I don’t think that fits anyone’s definition of independent.” Keil said ARB guidelines prohibit members from discussing the investigation with anyone outside the ARB.

Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, agreed with Keil, noting it was Mills who asked Mullen to serve on the ARB, which didn’t interview Mills or Clinton, warned them about the witness, and gave them a review copy of the report before it was released.

Today’s hearing came on the heels of two recent reports adding more questions to the Benghazi saga. This month, five commandos who were guarding the nearby CIA annex, published a book saying the CIA base chief three times told them to "stand down" when they were ready to attempt a rescue—a claim repeatedly denied by the State Department and Democrats. On Monday, The Daily Signal reported that a State Department official, who was later disciplined, claims he saw Clinton aides purging sensitive documents before the ARB could access them.

Neither of those issues came up on Wednesday, but Pompeo told me the panel will investigate them, along with all the other information individuals are bringing to the committee. Members of both parties said the hearing was a first step in a long process.

“I am willing to risk answering the same question twice rather than risk not answering it once,” Chairman Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., said in his opening statement. “I remain convinced our fellow citizens deserve all of the facts of what happened before, during, and after the attacks in Benghazi, and they deserve an investigative process worthy of the memory of those who died.”