Joining today's show are Katty Kay, Mike Barnicle, Eugene Robinson, Richard Haass, Harold Ford Jr., Gen. Michael Hayden, Mark McKinnon, Donny Deutsch, Chuck Todd, Tom Brokaw and John Kasich.
There were no Killings or Capturing of any Dolphins in the Cove today (Day 52) in Taji Japan and Liberals, Conservatives, Democrats and Republicans all will agree that the marathon Benghazi hearing leaves Hillary Clinton largely unscathed (to say the least because she came out looking great and they (GOP run committee) came off looking horrible). It was a big win for Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton avoided major damage to her presidential campaign during a nearly 11-hour congressional hearing Thursday dominated by Republican criticism of her response to the Benghazi attacks. And, if Hillary and her people did an awful job, what about what happened on 9/11 in 2001?
Honestly,I have seen many of these types of hearings and this one was a debacle for anyone but Hillary. And, in watching them, I always start off knowing nothing about the issue and I end up knowing about the issue after the panel and any committee systematically goes through it, to make their case. I was saying over and over during the first two hour segment that what is this hearing about? I said the same thing during the afternoon session and then I felt even more the same way into the evening. 11 hours of it and I learned not one thing about what happened that evening in Benghazi.
Even the way it went down with the committee members, there was no continuity because structurally, we always have one side asking a question and then the other side but I think that Trey Gowdy had his people taking care of one issue while another one dealt with another issue. It (questions, etc.) was all over the place.
But my feeling is that if Hillary is responsible for what went down in Benghazi, there should be more responsibility pointed at people after the 9/11 attacks back in 2001.
Bitter political undercurrents festered all day during a contentious showdown that turned into a political endurance test. After a day-long grilling on the details of the attack and how Clinton handled it, the former secretary of state was forced to defend her use of a private email account while in office from a flurry of late evening attacks by GOP lawmakers.
She also came under testy cross-examination over the extent to which she has taken responsibility for the deaths of the Americans in the September 11, 2012, attacks and her contact with U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens, one of the victims, after sending him to the North African country.
"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," Clinton said towards the end of the grueling day -- before later breaking into a coughing fit and taking a throat lozenge to ease her failing voice.
The performance, coming one day after Vice President Joe Biden's decision not to seek the presidency and a week after a strong showing at the Democratic debate, could solidify Clinton's standing as the prohibitive favorite to win her party's presidential nomination.
While the hearing did not appear to include any major new revelations on what happened In Benghazi or Washington on the night of the attack, it did offer an opportunity for Republicans to probe what they say are still unanswered questions about the tragedy.
And so deep is the partisan divide over the attack that the exhaustive hearing is unlikely to have changed many minds. Republicans are sure to still view Clinton as resistant to scrutiny and to blame her for security lapses in Benghazi. Democrats are sure to continue to see the hearing as a witch hunt designed to wound the Democratic front-runner's 2016 campaign.
One Republican, Rep. Peter Roskam of Illinois, grew increasingly frustrated about Clinton's refusal to provide any new answers on the attack.
"I have heard one dismissive thing after another. What did you do? What did you own?" Roskam asked, his patience fraying over Clinton's repeated statements that though she accepted responsibility for what happened in Benghazi, decisions about security arrangements were left to U.S. envoys on the ground and security professionals in the State Department.
Roskam ripped a piece of paper in two in a theatrical gesture meant to support his claim that requests for security from Stevens were denied.
"You laid this on Chris Stevens, didn't you? They didn't get through to you. They didn't get through to your inner circle," Roskam charged.
One of the most dramatic moments of the hearing came when Clinton was asked about her contact with Stevens. She acknowledged that she couldn't recall having talked to him after having sworn him in as ambassador, though she believed they had spoken.
Despite the day's intensity, Clinton appeared cool and in command for much of the hearing. But as the day wore on, she seemed to be increasingly impatient with the Republican line of questioning and with the constant interruptions from the GOP members on the panel.
In her most emotive testimony, Clinton sought to defang the GOP attacks by arguing that she agonized over the deaths of four Americans in Libya more than anyone else on the panel.
"I would imagine I have thought more about what happened than all of you put together," she said. "I have lost more sleep than all of you put together. I have been wracking my brain about what more could have been done or should have been done."
Attackers set the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya, on fire on September 11, 2012. The U.S. ambassador to Libya, Christopher Stevens, and three other U.S. nationals were killed during the attack. The Obama administration initially thought the attack was carried out by an angry mob responding to a video, made in the United States, that mocked Islam and the Prophet Mohammed. But the storming of the mission was later determined to have been a terrorist attack.
Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan repeatedly attacked Clinton throughout the day, first alleging that she and other Obama administration staff tried to blame the attack on the consulate on an anti-Muslim YouTube video to avoid undercutting President Barack Obama's claims that he had crushed al Qaeda.
"You could live with a protest about a video, that won't hurt you, but a terror attack would," Jordan said, saying that Americans could accept, reluctantly, compatriots being killed abroad but "what they can't live with is when their government is not square with them."
Clinton rejected the claim, saying in the desperate hours after the attack, that information on the true nature of the assault on the compound by a mob was unclear.
"I am sorry that it doesn't fit your narrative congressman, I can only tell you what the facts are."
Jordan also clashed with Clinton over her use of a private email server she employed instead of a government account while secretary of state.
"It seems like there is a pattern, a pattern of changing your story ... If your story about your emails keeps changing, how can we accept your statements that you have turned over all work-related emails and all emails about Libya?" asked Jordan.
The lawmaker became exasperated when Clinton said that the email server was on her property, guarded by the Secret Service. He asked how that would thwart a hacking attempt and demanded to know why she brought it up. Clinton replied that she had been motivated to do so "out of an abundance of being transparent."
Clinton also came under repeated criticism from Republicans who didn't accept her explanations as they tried to prove she ignored pleas from U.S. diplomats in Libya for better security and played the dominant role in the U.S. intervention in Libya, which was an initial success but left a chaotic failed state behind.
Clinton: I was the one who asked Stevens to go
Clinton: I was the one who asked Stevens to go 01:19
The hearing evolved into a tussle between Republicans who believe there are still serious questions to answer about what happened in Benghazi -- as well as those who appear to want to dent her presidential ambitions -- and Clinton as she tries to build on a resurgence in her campaign after a tough summer.
At one point, the panel's top Republican, Trey Gowdy, and Democrat, Elijah Cummings, began shouting and interrupting each other over what information the committee should release while Clinton sat silently in the witness chair, watching the heated exchange and nodding her agreement with Cummings.
And as the evening wore on, Democrats became increasingly impatient for the hearing to end.
"We are better than using taxpayer dollars to try to destroy a campaign," Cummings fumed. "That is not what America is all about."
Clinton replied that her answers had been no different than when she testified before the House and Senate on Benghazi two years ago, then slipped into campaign mode: "I realize there are many currents at work in this committee, but I hope that the statesmanship overcomes partisanship. At some point we have to do this."
Another Republican, Rep Mike Pompeo of Kansas, tried to rile Clinton by asking why her old friend and political operative Sidney Blumenthal had been able to send her personal emails, requests for more security from U.S. staff in Libya did not reach her desk.
Clinton responded by saying that she had accepted that she was responsible for sending Americans into harm's way, but she maintained that the exact details of operational security had been left to professionals within the State Department and were not within her purview.
"i was responsible for quite a lot," Clinton said. "I was not responsible for specific requests and security provisions -- that is not something I was responsible for."
Clinton's calm demeanor cracked under an early evening line of questioning from Alabama Rep. Martha Roby, who wanted to know what she was doing after she left the office and went home from the State Department on the night of the attack.
"I was alone," said Clinton, who seemed surprised by the question.
"The whole night?" asked Roby. "Yes, the whole night," Clinton said before launching into her famous guffawing laugh.
"I don't know why that is funny. Did you have an in-person briefing?" Roby asked.
Clinton, looking at a clock on the wall, replied: "I'm sorry, a little note of levity at 7.15," before assuring Roby she didn't sleep on that fateful night and was in constant contact with aides via a secure phone line.
Hillary's listening face during the Benghazi hearings
Hillary's listening face during the Benghazi hearings 01:49
There were several occasions when Democrats teed up questions for Clinton that allowed her to speak at length and in personal terms about the events in Benghazi.
At the prompting of Cummings, Clinton spoke movingly about the deaths of Stevens and State Department Information management officer Sean Smith from smoke inhalation.
With an eye on the audience outside the Capitol Hill hearing room, Clinton said that she wanted members and "viewers in the public to understand this was the fog of war" in the confused hours after the attack.
And she related how a security agent with Smith and Stevens had "turned back into that diesel smoke desperately trying to find Chris and Sean. He did find Sean and Sean had succumbed to smoke inhalation ... He could not find Chris Stevens."
Her allies on the committee also repeatedly raised questions about the integrity of the investigation. One lawmaker, Adam Schiff of California, said the only reason Clinton was in the room was because she was running for president and had high poll numbers.
But throughout, Republicans maintained that the panel was not created to serve partisan ends.
Gowdy rejected Democratic claims he was leading the investigation to a pre-ordained verdict with the intention of damaging Clinton.
"There is no theory of the prosecution," Gowdy said, raising his voice.
"This is not a prosecution," he reiterated moments later. "I have reached no conclusions."
But the heated exchanges highlighted that the hearing is not only limited to an examination of Clinton's record on Benghazi but also the extent to which partisanship has shaped the investigation, with the Democratic candidates' allies repeatedly charging the GOP with politically motivated maneuvers.
Gowdy, Cummings get heated during Benghazi hearing
Roskam also accused Clinton of using the U.S. intervention in Benghazi to boost her own personal political brand.
"Let me tell you what I think the Clinton doctrine is -- I think it is 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 ... and then turn your attention to other things," Roskam said.
The former secretary of state quickly seized on that comment to further her contention that the hearing was nothing but political grandstanding.
"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 talking about today," she said.
Cummings claimed the probe had wasted 17 months and $4.7 million on a partisan fishing expedition that had turned up no new evidence on the attack, which occurred when she was secretary of state.
Clinton noted that an independent Accountability Review Board that she set up as secretary had pulled no punches, unveiling 29 recommendations for improving security for U.S. diplomats overseas. She also noted that previous attacks on Americans abroad, including in 1983 on a U.S. Marines barracks and the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, had produced changes to U.S. security procedures after nonpartisan investigations by Congress.
Republican Chairman Of Benghazi Committee Caught Making Bogus Accusation Against Hillary Clinton.
Trey Gowdy, the chair of the Select Committee on Benghazi, leveled a very serious charge against Hillary Clinton in an October 7 letter. Gowdy asserted that Hillary Clinton disclosed the name of CIA source in an email sent from her private server. Gowdy wrote that the information was “some of the most protected information in our intelligence community, the release of which could jeopardize not only national security but human lives.”
The Washington Examiner covered the story with this headline: “Clinton burns CIA Libya contact.”
This does not appear to be true.
A letter from Elijah Cummings, the ranking Democrat on the committee, reveals that the CIA reviewed the email in question and found that the information in question was not classified.
Cummings said that Gowdy’s accusation was “irresponsible” and suggested he owes “an immediate apology” to Hillary Clinton.
In response, Gowdy acknowledged the CIA’s view but said that “the name of the alleged source was redacted from the material cleared for public release by someone in the Executive Branch.” Cummings explained that the name was redacted “not for classification reasons, but to protect the individual’s privacy and avoid bringing additional undue attention to this person.”
The dustup comes on the heels of a number of embarrassing revelations from the Benghazi committee. Republican Major Leader Kevin McCarthy bragged that the committee had successfully driven down Hillary Clinton’s poll numbers. Another Republican Congressman, Mark Hanna, said the committee was “designed to go after” Clinton.
Clinton is scheduled to testify in front of the committee this week.
CNN Anchor Asks Bush To Explain His Double Standard For Benghazi And 9/11. It Doesn’t Go Well. During the latest stop in his media tour to defend his brother’s actions as president, Jeb Bush asked on CNN Sunday if anyone actually blames his brother for the attacks on 9/11, saying if they do, “they’re totally marginalized in our society.”
CNN’s Jake Tapper pushed back, asking Bush about the Republican Party’s double standard.
“Obviously Al-Qaeda was responsible for the terrorist attack of 9/11,” Tapper said. “But how do you respond to critics who ask if your brother and his administration bear no responsibility at all, how do you then make the jump that President Obama and Secretary Clinton are responsible for what happened at Benghazi?”
The younger Bush had no coherent answer.
“Well I, it’s the question on Benghazi which is hopefully will now finally get the truth to it, is: was that, was the place secure?” he said, clearly flustered. “They had a responsibility, Department of State, to have proper security.”
Bush pointed out that “it’s what you do after that matters” when it comes to leadership, yet he could not explain why the Republican Party continues to attack Clinton for the 2012 terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya that left a U.S. ambassador dead.
The controversy began on Friday when Donald Trump asserted that the older Bush brother was president at the time of the 9/11 attacks. “When you talk about George Bush, I mean, say what you want, the World Trade Center came down during his time,” Trump said. “He was president, O.K.?”
Jeb Bush then contested the seemingly indisputable comment, calling Trump’s comments “pathetic” and insisting “my brother kept us safe.” The New York Times reported that “[b]laming 9/11 on Mr. Bush is taboo for Republicans and has largely been off-limits for Democrats.” Yet Republicans will force Clinton to testify before a public hearing of the U.S. House Select Committee on Benghazi this week.
Hillary Clinton Has Won the Benghazi Hearing. It was supposed to damage her campaign. Instead it will be a coup.
The most honest moment of Hillary Clinton’s hearing before the House Select Committee on Benghazi came toward the end of its third hour. “Those who want to believe the worst will believe the worst. Those that want to believe this is a partisan exercise will believe it,” said Rep. Adam Schiff. He’s right. If you don’t like Clinton—if you think she’s a liar and a disgrace—then this hearing doesn’t matter. It changes nothing. And if you think this is a farce—an “abusive effort” to derail Clinton’s presidential campaign—you’ll walk away unmoved.
Still, it’s possible to judge and evaluate a performance. Ignoring our baked-in reactions to either Clinton or House Republicans, how have both sides fared in this long-form exercise in political theater?
The GOP’s job was simple: Try as hard as possible to dispel the belief that the Benghazi committee is a partisan witch hunt, as it was essentially described in an unintentionally revealing moment by House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy. To do that, GOP members had to keep calm, stay sober, and approach Clinton as determined but ultimately fair-minded investigators. For the first hour, they succeeded. Chairman Trey Gowdy was measured and serious, if defensive about his committee—“Not a single member of this committee signed up to investigate you or your email”—while Rep. Peter Roskam of Illinois, who followed Gowdy’s opening statement, asked careful questions aimed at establishing Clinton’s role in building the administration’s policy in Libya.
So far, so good.
By the next hour, however, Republican propriety fell apart. During a testy back-and-forth with Clinton, Rep. Mike Pompeo of Kansas condemned her for lack of visible accountability in the State Department’s handling of security in Benghazi. “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?” he said. “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 they could not find a breach of duty,” Clinton replied.
When Pompeo couldn’t get the answer he wanted, he moved to another claim—that the State Department was meeting with al-Qaida fighters in Libya. “[Y]our officials were meeting with this man on the ground in Benghazi, Libya, discussing security,” he said. When Clinton couldn’t give an answer on who those officials were—she wasn’t aware of the meeting—he yielded his time. It was unclear if Clinton was caught or if Pompeo knew he couldn’t deliver the goods, but it didn’t appear to hurt her. Later in the hearing, after the break, Pompeo would press Clinton on her relationship to Ambassador Christopher Stevens—who was killed in the attack—versus her relationship with Sidney Blumenthal, a longtime ally. Did Stevens have her personal email address? Her home address? Pompeo also pressed Clinton for her approach to management: Why, as the chief diplomat responsible for thousands of employees and facilities, wasn’t she involved in managing each aspect of embassy security?
Likewise, in a similarly long but fruitless exchange, Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio indulged a whole host of breathless—and debunked—claims about Clinton’s involvement in Benghazi: that Clinton lied about protests, that she lied about the relevancy of an anti-Muslim video that had sparked an uproar in the Middle East, and that she attempted to cover up crucial information. This had a rhythm: Jordan would bark a question, Clinton would try to answer, and Jordan would interrupt her. By the end, she was clearly bored and contemptuous of the exchange.
But this was just a preview of the worst moment of the first three hours. Before the hearing broke for its lunch break, Gowdy—after denying that the committee was a “prosecution”—asked aggressive questions about Clinton and her relationship to Blumenthal: whether she solicited his advice, where he got his information on Libya, and why she passed his emails on to others. For a committee ostensibly about the attacks in Benghazi, it was an unusual exchange, made worse when Rep. Elijah Cummings—the ranking Democratic member—demanded that Gowdy release the full transcripts of Blumenthal’s testimony, sparking a loud and bitter fight over the direction of the hearing between the two men. Even for this Congress—among the most unpopular in recent history—it was embarrassing.
Which brings us to Hillary Clinton’s performance. At times, she stumbled. Pompeo’s questioning, for instance, was well-structured, and it’s almost a guarantee that Clinton’s claims of ignorance with regard to meetings in Libya will find themselves into campaign advertisements. Overall, however, Clinton was strong. Throughout, she showed her clear knowledge of foreign policy questions, defended the administration and her tenure at the State Department, and laid out her vision for how American diplomacy should operate.
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.
You don’t have to like Clinton to see that this is a coup for her campaign. Not only has she bolstered her image as a smart, competent policymaker, but she’s even defused her email controversy—or come close to it—by talking about the issue in a calm, nonadversarial way. Meanwhile, by the fifth hour, committee members like Roskam were hitting Clinton for having a skilled press team.
All the internet polls say Bernie won the hearing! The Media is just completely owned by Wall Street.
When this began, conventional wisdom was that Hillary had to survive the scrutiny. That at best, this would be a wash. Toward the end, however, that wisdom changed. “Unless something happens,” wrote conservative columnist Matt Lewis on Twitter, “it’s starting to look like Hillary Clinton won’t merely survive this hearing—she will have come out on top.”
Whether or not Republicans built the Benghazi committee to damage Clinton’s campaign, it’s clear they weren’t opposed to an outcome where Clinton was harmed. Instead, we have the opposite. Thanks to the committee, Clinton might escape a scandal, neutralize an attack, and enter the first major stretch of the presidential race with the wind at her back.
Conservative Reviews Are In: Benghazi Hearing A Bust. Some of Hillary Clinton's top critics think she won the day.
To hear Republicans tell it, a series of unfortunate events culminated in a rough day Thursday for the House Benghazi Committee, leaving conservatives to wonder if they've lost their most potent political weapon against Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton.
Seven months after the panel revealed that Clinton used a private e-mail server as secretary of state—a scoop that committee chairman Trey Gowdy repeatedly took credit for—bringing heaps of negative press to the Democratic presidential front-runner and a dip in her poll numbers, Clinton effectively turned the tables on her most nettlesome GOP inquisitors. During 8 hours and 20 minutes of testimony, Clinton deftly handled some hostile and at times pointed questioning from Republicans, keeping her cool and letting Democrats on the committee handle the political attacks.
In the end, Republicans threw some red meat to their conservative base but failed to land a blow to Clinton's credibility or unearth a meaningful discovery about the 2012 attacks on a U.S. outpost that left four Americans dead in Libya. It wasn't just Clinton loyalists saying that.
"It was all a political spectacle."Erick Erickson
"A hearing that was once a threat has really become an opportunity for her," John Dean, a former White House counsel for Richard Nixon who is now a political independent, said on MSNBC hours into the hearing. "I think this is really Hillary's day. It's going to help her presidential campaign. As somebody who's been both a witness and a counsel, this is a textbook example of how to be a good witness."
Among House Republicans, there were no high-fives: A half-dozen lawmakers surveyed offered a muted response when asked about the hearing on Thursday afternoon. Many conservative commentators were unimpressed, if not angry with the proceedings.
"So a hearing billed as an epic, High Noon-style confrontation—granted, the hype came from the media, not Republican committee members themselves—instead turned out to be a somewhat interesting look at a few limited aspects of the Benghazi affair," wrote Byron York at the Washington Examiner. "In other words, no big deal. And that is very, very good news for Hillary Clinton."
Conservative radio host Erick Erickson described the hearings as "a waste of time because everything about it is politicized and nothing is going to happen."
"There will be no scalp collection," he wrote in a blog post, adding: "It was all a political spectacle. God bless Trey Gowdy for trying to learn the facts and understand what happened. But the rest of it was just a carnival road show of back bench congresscritters playing to the cameras and Hillary Clinton working hard to play persecuted victim."
Erickson lamented that House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy's recent comments on Fox News bragging about the Benghazi committee's deleterious effect on Clinton's poll numbers "discredited this episode before it began in the minds of the press." McCarthy's remarks were followed by a second Republican congressman, New York's Richard Hanna, saying the panel was created "to go after people and an individual, Hillary Clinton." Meanwhile, a former Benghazi committee staffer says he's preparing to sue the panel for allegedly being fired because he didn't want to target Clinton.
Days before the hearing, Republican Chairman Trey Gowdy told Politico that "these have been among the worst weeks of my life" and went on CBS to instruct his colleagues to "shut up" about the work of the committee, insisting it was about fact-finding and not politics. The hearing didn't provide much to boost his outlook.
One exchange that drew digital eye-rolls featured Representative Mike Pompeo of Kansas grilling Clinton on whether former Ambassador Chris Stevens had similar "access" to her as her confidant Sid Blumenthal by way of private email, phone number and home address. This prompted a former U.S. Ambassador to Russia, Michael McFaul, to tweet out a lesson in the way diplomats communicate.
Usually Republican-friendly commentators were equally, if not more, unimpressed.
Well-known conservative writer John Podhoretz, a former speechwriter for Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, was even more withering.
The most promising line of questioning for Republicans focused not on the security of the Americans who died on Clinton's watch at Benghazi, Libya but on Clinton's prolific correspondence with Sidney Blumenthal, a longtime confidant who had so many enemies in President Barack Obama's administration that the White House barred the secretary of state from hiring him, Clinton's former chief of staff, Cheryl Mills, told the committee in a deposition released earlier in the week. Gowdy pressed Clinton about Blumenthal's extracurricular role as her adviser reading aloud some of the insults he e-mailed her about other members of the Obama administration. But she dissociated herself from the comments.
Another sign of the way political tides where turning: The Fox News Channel, which has taken a special interest in the issue of Benghazi in recent years, cut away from the hearing midway through while other networks continued to carry it live.
Matt Lewis, a writer at the conservative Daily Caller, sounded the alarm mid-afternoon.
Referring to McCarthy's brag about the Benghazi committee's impact on Clinton's poll numbers--which Clinton and her allies quickly seized upon as corroboration of their theory that the panel was created to troll her--Lewis further noted:
When Republicans regroup after the hearing, the big question facing them will be whether their sharpest political weapon against Clinton so far has turned into a dull object—or worse yet, one that is now at serious risk of being used against them. The Benghazi committee is 18 months old.
Right-wing radio host Rush Limbaugh also sensed the ground shifting, telling listeners Thursday that the media had already decided that it wanted to "able to claim that the Republicans did not land a glove on Mrs. Clinton. That she showed up and that she looked good and that she was composed and that she triumphed over this, and the Republicans weren't able to do a thing about it. That is the objective."
The best reason to shut down the Benghazi committee. The unique feature of the House Select Committee on Benghazi is that its sole mission is to inflict political damage on a person who already has been exonerated by the collective force of seven congressional committees.
The Benghazi committee was established by the House in May 2014 to investigate the terrorist assault that killed four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, in Benghazi, Libya. It was sold as an effort to find out what happened, whether the administration could have done more to prevent the attacks, and what could be done to protect US diplomatic facilities in the future. But the Benghazi inquisition is beginning to backfire on the Republicans because they really created it to hurt Hillary Clinton's chances of becoming the next president.
Last month, House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy crippled the committee, and his own bid to become House speaker, by announcing on national television that its actions were bringing down Clinton's poll numbers. Since then, a fired staffer has accused the committee of dismissing him because he refused to target the Democratic presidential frontrunner, and a moderate House Republican from Clinton's adoptive home state of New York has said the committee was "designed" to hit her.
On Thursday, committee Republicans opened a made-for-television hearing with Clinton with three hours of questions that established no new facts, other than that Stevens didn't have her private email address. Clinton fielded their questions calmly, acknowledged that she was a force who pushed for the US to intervene in Libya in 2011 and disputed the notion that Sidney Blumenthal, a longtime confidant who did not work at State, was a top adviser to her.
The only real flare-up in the first part of the hearing was over whether Blumenthal's deposition, taken in June, should be made public. It was Democrats who argued for that, and Republicans voted down their motion.
None of it had anything to do with preventing future attacks or learning new information about the assault that killed Americans in Benghazi. The committee's modus operandi has been to focus on elements of the story unrelated to the attacks. Indeed, last Friday, Huma Abedin, the vice chair of Clinton's campaign and a former deputy chief of staff at State, testified before the committee behind closed doors. Clinton campaign spokesperson Nick Merrill said last Thursday night that Abedin, who is Clinton's closest personal aide, has no knowledge of Benghazi. He called the GOP's focus on her "just another tactic in their partisan plan to go after Hillary Clinton."
Clinton said Thursday that it was "deeply distressing" that she was being blamed for the death of Stevens, whom she regarded as a friend, and noted that US officials were not harangued after attacks that killed Americans during the Reagan and Clinton administrations.
It would be smart politically for Republicans to dissolve the panel before it helps Clinton and hurts them any more. But more important, the committee should be disbanded because it is a threat to the effectiveness of a very important congressional check on executive power. The viability of that tool, the select committee, should be preserved — even though it's being abused now.
When run properly, select committees are a vital tool for Congress
Throughout the history of the union, Congress has used select committees to investigate major national issues that are outside either the scope or the capacity of one of its existing committees.
The Senate Watergate Committee, the House and Senate select committees on the Iran/Contra affair, and the Senate Whitewater Committee are among the most famous in recent history. Joseph McCarthy infamously used the House Un-American Activities Committee and the Senate's Permanent Select Committee on Investigations, both of which functioned like select committees, to target suspected communists in civilian government, Hollywood, and — leading to his eventual undoing — the Army. While they aren't always investigative in nature — House Democrats had a select committee on climate change for a while — the most prominent and consequential generally are.
They also tend to have a naturally partisan tilt. A House or Senate controlled by Democrats is less likely to appoint a select committee to investigate a Democratic president, and the same is true for Republican-run chambers when a Republican is in the White House. Because the president has power over the Justice Department and the FBI — the ability, in some cases, to prevent probing — it's a good thing that Congress has the authority to conduct its own special investigations.
So it's taken as a given in Washington that select committees are usually established with a dual purpose in mind: that they will uncover wrongdoing — usually by the administration of the other party's president — and that the wrongdoing will hurt the president and his party politically.
The key, though, is that there are actual substantive misdeeds that can be revealed to the public, which puts pressure on federal investigators and prosecutors to bring charges against the president or members of his administration — or at the very least force the administration to make changes that improve governance.
But in Clinton's case, no one in a position of authority has made a plausible argument that she was guilty of malfeasance or serious negligence. There was no reason for House Republicans to think that the select committee would turn up anything related to the Benghazi attacks that hadn't been exhumed already by Congress.
The Benghazi committee's work is at odds with its purpose
On the surface, the Benghazi committee was established to look into some important matters.
In practice, it has done none of those things — primarily because several other congressional committees and a State Department review board already investigated them. Seven existing congressional committees conducted investigations into aspects of the Benghazi attacks before the select committee was created, and not one of them concluded that Clinton was guilty of any wrongdoing.
But that wasn't good enough for House Republicans, who were under immense pressure from constituents and talk radio hosts to keep the spotlight on Clinton. So they formed a select committee in May 2014, with the help of a handful of Democrats facing reelection in tough districts who had reason to fear that they would look like they were covering up if they voted against another investigation.
With nothing of substance left to look into, the Benghazi committee, run by former prosecutor Trey Gowdy, has spent about 17 months obtaining documents that later leaked into public view. They are almost exclusively related to Clinton's use of a private email server during her time at the State Department. And they surely would have come out anyway as a result of a series of federal lawsuits — some launched by political groups obsessed with destroying Clinton — aimed at forcing the State Department to comply with Freedom of Information Act requests.
If the purpose was to find out what happened and prevent it from happening again, the committee frustrated its goal by becoming so partisan and so focused on one person.
One thing we can all be entirely certain of is that Hillary Clinton's email didn't attack the US diplomatic and intelligence compounds in Benghazi. And anyone who thinks Clinton ordered, encouraged, or condoned the murders of these Americans is living in a very dark and twisted fantasy world.
For the good of Congress, kill the Benghazi committee and keep select committees alive
Congress needs the select committee option to focus attention on grievous wrongdoing by a president or his/her administration. It has proven, at times, to be a very effective truth serum for powerful officials in the past.
The Senate Watergate Committee's revelations included testimony from White House Counsel John Dean that President Richard Nixon was directly involved in the cover-up after a break-in at the Democratic National Committee's headquarters in Washington's Watergate building.
But the continued operation of the Benghazi committee's three-ring, $4.6 million circus risks making that tool less effective in the future. It simply wasn't designed to investigate things that never happened — like Clinton bearing primary responsibility for the Benghazi attacks. Select committees can have a partisan edge, but they shouldn't be solely about partisan politics. They should be directed toward solving mysteries for the American public.
There's no mystery here: Hillary Clinton isn't to blame for the Benghazi attacks.
What GOP Candidates Are Tweeting About Clinton's Benghazi Testimony.
Marco Rubio Uses Benghazi Committee to Boost Presidential Campaign.
Anyway, Ben Carson Leads Donald Trump 28-20 in New Iowa Poll. Donald Trump’s dominance in Iowa just took a hit.
Neurosurgeon Ben Carson has climbed to an 8-point lead over the real estate mogul in the crucial first-in-the-nation caucus state, according to a new poll this morning from Quinnipiac University. It marks the first time Trump has trailed in an Iowa poll in more than three months.
Carson garners 28 percent support from likely Republican caucus-goers in the Hawkeye state, climbing 8 points over the last month to his highest support there yet. Trump earns 20 percent, dropping 7 points in the last month.
Carson’s new lead in Iowa comes mostly thanks to growing support among women. While Trump and Carson each receive roughly the same amount of support from men, Carson earns 33 percent of women compared to only 13 percent for Trump.
Trump was criticized during the first Fox News debate by moderator Megyn Kelly for referring to women as “slobs” and “fat pigs.” He later reportedly said “"Look at that face! Would anyone vote for that?” about fellow Republican contender Carly Fiorina.
Florida Sen. Marco Rubio is also gaining momentum, climbing 8 points in the last month to reach 13 percent support. Texas Sen. Ted Cruz clocked in at 10 percent, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul took 6 percent, and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and businesswoman Carly Fiorina are at 5 percent. The rest of the field had 3 percent or less.
Carson’s new lead comes as the candidate takes a break from public campaign events to go on a book tour. The neurosurgeon had generated controversy over his comments about gun control and a potential Muslim president before beginning his book tour.
The Quinnipiac poll comes just one day after an ABC News/Washington Post poll showed Trump holding steady, leading Carson by 10 points. And more than four in 10 Republicans nationally think Trump will ultimately win the GOP nomination -– and with good reason: he’s led national polls for more than three months.
Carson’s new lead is bolstered by positive ratings across the board: 89 percent of GOP likely caucusgoers say Carson is honest and trustworthy and 84 percent have a favorable view of him –- both the best in the Republican field. Still, Trump is seen as the best candidate to handle the economy and illegal immigration.
Carson Surges Past Trump in Latest Bloomberg Politics/Des Moines Register Iowa Poll.
Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson has moved into a dominant position in Iowa, surpassing former front-runner Donald Trump as evangelical Christians begin to coalesce around him in the state that will cast the first 2016 nomination ballots.
A new Bloomberg Politics/Des Moines Register Iowa Poll shows the retired neurosurgeon is backed by 28 percent of likely Republican caucus participants, up 10 percentage points since late August. Trump is supported by 19 percent, down 4 points.
Those planning to caucus for Carson are drawn to his personal story and his status as a non-career politician, the poll shows, and they view him as someone who approaches issues with common sense and with guidance from his faith in God.
“His standing has improved in every way pollsters traditionally measure,” said J. Ann Selzer, president of West Des Moines-based Selzer & Co., which conducted the poll. “This might be a wake-up for Donald Trump.”
Read the questions and methodology here.
Texas Senator Ted Cruz, at 10 percent, is the only other candidate in double digits. He's followed by Florida Senator Marco Rubio at 9 percent. The horse-race numbers for the top four mirror a Quinnipiac University poll released Thursday, with the main exception being that the earlier poll had Rubio in third place with 13 percent.
The Iowa Poll, taken Oct. 16-19, included 401 likely Republican caucus participants. On the full sample, it has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.9 percentage points; the margin is higher in subgroups.
Evangelical Christians, who represent 42 percent of likely Republican caucus participants in the poll, appear to be aligning behind Carson. He received support from a third of that group, up from 21 percent in August, when he only narrowly led Trump with that key segment.
Cruz is unlikely to make large gains without support softening for Carson or Trump, who hold a combined 51 percent of evangelical likely GOP caucus participants.
Carson's rise has also been fueled by gains with Tea Party supporters. Among those who consider themselves part of the limited-government movement, he gets a third of the support, up from 21 percent in August.
More than two-thirds of likely GOP caucus-goers also say that on the basis of religion alone, it would be unacceptable for a Muslim to be a U.S. president—a view Carson espoused in a Sept. 20 appearance on NBC's Meet the Press.
Likely Republican caucus participants, meanwhile, remain uncertain about Trump's Christian credentials. Only about a third consider him a committed Christian, while 28 percent say he isn't and 40 percent say they're not sure. His favorability declined slightly, to 59 percent, and the proportion of likely Republican caucus-goers who say they would never vote for Trump also ticked up 5 points to 34 percent.
When asked which two or three candidates they'd like to see drop out, Trump, at 25 percent, received the highest share. He's followed on the dropout wish list by former Florida Governor Jeb Bush and South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham, both at 22 percent. Next is former New York Governor George Pataki at 21 percent.
Even after a month of super-PAC advertising on Bush's behalf in Iowa, he's picked by just 5 percent, down 1 point from August. His favorability rating has moved up 5 percentage points since August to 50 percent, however, his highest level in the past year.
Bush's name continues to burden him. Among likely caucus participants, 47 percent say that being the son and brother of two past presidents would be a bad thing because he would forever be in their shadow, while 42 percent say it would be a good because he knows the job's duties.
Carson's Appeal
As Trump dominated cable television over the summer, Carson quietly continued to build a network of Iowa supporters. He easily has the highest favorability rating among Republican candidates, with 84 percent of likely GOP caucus-goers seeing him positively, up from 79 percent in August.
Those glowing views of Carson, who rose from poverty to professional success and is seeking to become the nation's second black president, could make it hard for Trump, Cruz, or other rivals to attack him as the campaign heats up this fall.
In interviews, Carson supporters brought up his life story, candor, and non-political resume. Some also talked about how they think he could win black votes in a general election.
“He just says what he believes and I like that,” said Bruce Lindberg, 56, a chiropractor from Ottumwa who is leaning toward supporting Carson. “I like his story. He's been a hard worker and I don't think anything was given to him. He knows what it takes to be successful and that you have to work for it.”
The poll suggests Carson has more room to grow in Iowa, partly because his controversial statements generally aren't turning off even other candidates' supporters. Among that group, 56 percent find “very attractive” his statements that the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, is the worst thing since slavery, while 41 percent feel that way about his opposition to a Muslim president. Nearly half find “very attractive” his statement that Adolf Hitler's mass murder of Jews might not have been as successful if more people had been armed.
Another positive factor for Carson is Iowans' strong desire for an outsider candidate. Asked to pick the bigger risk for the country's future, 60 percent said it was electing “the same sort of person who has served as president for many decades,” who would likely do things the way they'd always been done, while 31 percent see bigger risk in electing someone who hasn't held office and doesn't know how government works.
Two areas where Carson is less strong are his lack of foreign policy experience and his past research on aborted fetus tissue. Each registered as unattractive with a majority of likely GOP caucus-goers who aren't already supporting him.
Testing potential lines of attack against other top Republicans:
As in a Bloomberg Politics/Saint Anselm New Hampshire Poll released Wednesday, more of Trump's Iowa supporters are decided than Carson's. Roughly a third of Trump supporters say their minds are made up, while just 15 percent of Carson's supporters say that.
Finding Signs Of Unity, Paul Ryan Officially Enters House Speaker Race.
Wisconsin Republican Paul Ryan has officially entered the House speaker race, saying in a letter to colleagues, "After talking with so many of you, and hearing your words of encouragement, I believe we are ready to move forward as a one, united team." His announcement came after securing the support of three disparate House Republican groups.
Ryan had said he would run if certain conditions were met. It's not clear whether they were. He wanted the Republican Party to unite behind his candidacy and change the rules to make it harder for a speaker to be ousted, and he wanted more time to spend with his family.
He saw some signs of that unity he wanted this week. As NPR's Ailsa Chang reported, he got support, though not an endorsement, from the House Freedom Caucus earlier this week. About two-thirds of the roughly 40-member caucus said they would support Ryan. They didn't reach their supermajority threshold of 80 percent to officially endorse Ryan, but the two-thirds support would give him more than the 218 votes needed to become speaker.
Ryan called it a "positive step toward a unified Republican team." He also got support from the conservative Republican Study Committee and the moderate Tuesday Group.
Ryan had said on multiple occasions that he didn't want the job, but several prominent Republicans including outgoing House Speaker John Boehner and Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy pressured him to enter the race.
Florida Republican Daniel Webster remains a candidate and has the official endorsement of the Freedom Caucus. But since the majority of that caucus now supports Ryan, he has more than the 218 votes needed to become speaker.
There are other Republicans who might want the job, though none are likely to have wide enough support to get 218 votes, as NPR's Susan Davis reported.
After current Speaker Boehner announced he would step down, McCarthy, the current House minority leader, was widely seen as Boehner's replacement. But he abruptly withdrew his name from the race earlier this month. After McCarthy withdrew, Ryan had sent a release less than 20 minutes later, reading, "I will not be a candidate."
John Kasich Jabs (And Praises) Obama in Town Hall. In a town hall meeting at Dartmouth College set to air Friday morning on MSNBC's "Morning Joe," presidential hopeful John Kasich touched on a giant slew of topics, from dysfunction in Washington to the success of the auto bailout, the Iran deal, criminal justice reform, campaign finance, and much more.
Kasich, the Republican governor of Ohio, blasted the Iran deal, saying Iran is "getting very, very close to where I would say they are violating the treaty."
He also critiqued the Obama administration's relationship with Israel, lamenting that, "our president wont even meet with the prime minister. I couldn't believe it." If Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu wanted to see him, he said he'd be happy to sit down with him in D.C.
Kasich was also asked to name something President Obama has done well, and mentioned the administration's handling of the auto industry. Steve Rattner, who was participating in the town hall, and who served on Obama's Presidential Task Force on the Auto Industry, was actually the one to ask the question.
Kasich has been pinning his hopes on performing well in New Hampshire. Last week he traversed up and down the state in a multi-day bus tour, culminating in an announcement of his broad proposals to balance the budget within eight years.
The town hall hosted by Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski will air on "Morning Joe" between 6:00 and 9:00 a.m. Friday morning on MSNBC.
Lincoln Chafee drops out of Democratic primary race. Former Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee ended his long-shot bid for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination Friday, his campaign announced in a statement.
Chafee is set to speak on his decision momentarily at the DNC's annual Women's Leadership Forum in Washington.
"As you know I have been campaigning on a platform of Prosperity Through Peace," Chafee is expected to say according to prepared remarks provided by the campaign. "But after much thought I have decided to end my campaign for president today. I would like to take this opportunity one last time to advocate for a chance be given to peace."
The Democrat declared his presidential campaign in June, shortly after announcing that he had formed an exploratory committee.
Chafee has spent most of his life as a Republican. He was nominated to his late father's Senate seat in 1999 and then was elected as a Republican in 2000. He served only one term, losing to Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse in 2006, but then successfully ran for governor of Rhode Island as an independent.
Facing long odds and slumping in the polls, Chafee decided not to run for reelection in 2014. He told CNN last month that he made that decision because he wanted to run for president.
He has been one of the most aggressive candidates against frontrunner Hillary Clinton, calling her out at multiple times about her 2002 vote in favor of the Iraq War.
"Considering the premise for invading Iraq was based on falsehoods and considering the ramifications we live with now from that mistake, I would argue that anybody who voted for the Iraq War should not be president and certainly should not be leading the Democratic Party," he said in an interview with CNN.
Chafee was never supremely confident in his chances to win the nomination. When asked by CNN in April if he would bet on himself to win, he simply responded, "I can't," before catting himself and saying that he is "in it to win."
Mika is off from the show today. She has her 'Know Your Values' event in Boston this weekend which is sold out. There are tickets still available for the event down in Orlando next month.
Regardless of it all happening this week, please stay in touch!
There were no Killings or Capturing of any Dolphins in the Cove today (Day 52) in Taji Japan and Liberals, Conservatives, Democrats and Republicans all will agree that the marathon Benghazi hearing leaves Hillary Clinton largely unscathed (to say the least because she came out looking great and they (GOP run committee) came off looking horrible). It was a big win for Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton avoided major damage to her presidential campaign during a nearly 11-hour congressional hearing Thursday dominated by Republican criticism of her response to the Benghazi attacks. And, if Hillary and her people did an awful job, what about what happened on 9/11 in 2001?
Honestly,I have seen many of these types of hearings and this one was a debacle for anyone but Hillary. And, in watching them, I always start off knowing nothing about the issue and I end up knowing about the issue after the panel and any committee systematically goes through it, to make their case. I was saying over and over during the first two hour segment that what is this hearing about? I said the same thing during the afternoon session and then I felt even more the same way into the evening. 11 hours of it and I learned not one thing about what happened that evening in Benghazi.
Even the way it went down with the committee members, there was no continuity because structurally, we always have one side asking a question and then the other side but I think that Trey Gowdy had his people taking care of one issue while another one dealt with another issue. It (questions, etc.) was all over the place.
But my feeling is that if Hillary is responsible for what went down in Benghazi, there should be more responsibility pointed at people after the 9/11 attacks back in 2001.
Bitter political undercurrents festered all day during a contentious showdown that turned into a political endurance test. After a day-long grilling on the details of the attack and how Clinton handled it, the former secretary of state was forced to defend her use of a private email account while in office from a flurry of late evening attacks by GOP lawmakers.
She also came under testy cross-examination over the extent to which she has taken responsibility for the deaths of the Americans in the September 11, 2012, attacks and her contact with U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens, one of the victims, after sending him to the North African country.
"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," Clinton said towards the end of the grueling day -- before later breaking into a coughing fit and taking a throat lozenge to ease her failing voice.
The performance, coming one day after Vice President Joe Biden's decision not to seek the presidency and a week after a strong showing at the Democratic debate, could solidify Clinton's standing as the prohibitive favorite to win her party's presidential nomination.
While the hearing did not appear to include any major new revelations on what happened In Benghazi or Washington on the night of the attack, it did offer an opportunity for Republicans to probe what they say are still unanswered questions about the tragedy.
And so deep is the partisan divide over the attack that the exhaustive hearing is unlikely to have changed many minds. Republicans are sure to still view Clinton as resistant to scrutiny and to blame her for security lapses in Benghazi. Democrats are sure to continue to see the hearing as a witch hunt designed to wound the Democratic front-runner's 2016 campaign.
One Republican, Rep. Peter Roskam of Illinois, grew increasingly frustrated about Clinton's refusal to provide any new answers on the attack.
"I have heard one dismissive thing after another. What did you do? What did you own?" Roskam asked, his patience fraying over Clinton's repeated statements that though she accepted responsibility for what happened in Benghazi, decisions about security arrangements were left to U.S. envoys on the ground and security professionals in the State Department.
Roskam ripped a piece of paper in two in a theatrical gesture meant to support his claim that requests for security from Stevens were denied.
"You laid this on Chris Stevens, didn't you? They didn't get through to you. They didn't get through to your inner circle," Roskam charged.
One of the most dramatic moments of the hearing came when Clinton was asked about her contact with Stevens. She acknowledged that she couldn't recall having talked to him after having sworn him in as ambassador, though she believed they had spoken.
Despite the day's intensity, Clinton appeared cool and in command for much of the hearing. But as the day wore on, she seemed to be increasingly impatient with the Republican line of questioning and with the constant interruptions from the GOP members on the panel.
In her most emotive testimony, Clinton sought to defang the GOP attacks by arguing that she agonized over the deaths of four Americans in Libya more than anyone else on the panel.
"I would imagine I have thought more about what happened than all of you put together," she said. "I have lost more sleep than all of you put together. I have been wracking my brain about what more could have been done or should have been done."
Attackers set the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya, on fire on September 11, 2012. The U.S. ambassador to Libya, Christopher Stevens, and three other U.S. nationals were killed during the attack. The Obama administration initially thought the attack was carried out by an angry mob responding to a video, made in the United States, that mocked Islam and the Prophet Mohammed. But the storming of the mission was later determined to have been a terrorist attack.
Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan repeatedly attacked Clinton throughout the day, first alleging that she and other Obama administration staff tried to blame the attack on the consulate on an anti-Muslim YouTube video to avoid undercutting President Barack Obama's claims that he had crushed al Qaeda.
"You could live with a protest about a video, that won't hurt you, but a terror attack would," Jordan said, saying that Americans could accept, reluctantly, compatriots being killed abroad but "what they can't live with is when their government is not square with them."
Clinton rejected the claim, saying in the desperate hours after the attack, that information on the true nature of the assault on the compound by a mob was unclear.
"I am sorry that it doesn't fit your narrative congressman, I can only tell you what the facts are."
Jordan also clashed with Clinton over her use of a private email server she employed instead of a government account while secretary of state.
"It seems like there is a pattern, a pattern of changing your story ... If your story about your emails keeps changing, how can we accept your statements that you have turned over all work-related emails and all emails about Libya?" asked Jordan.
The lawmaker became exasperated when Clinton said that the email server was on her property, guarded by the Secret Service. He asked how that would thwart a hacking attempt and demanded to know why she brought it up. Clinton replied that she had been motivated to do so "out of an abundance of being transparent."
Clinton also came under repeated criticism from Republicans who didn't accept her explanations as they tried to prove she ignored pleas from U.S. diplomats in Libya for better security and played the dominant role in the U.S. intervention in Libya, which was an initial success but left a chaotic failed state behind.
Clinton: I was the one who asked Stevens to go
Clinton: I was the one who asked Stevens to go 01:19
The hearing evolved into a tussle between Republicans who believe there are still serious questions to answer about what happened in Benghazi -- as well as those who appear to want to dent her presidential ambitions -- and Clinton as she tries to build on a resurgence in her campaign after a tough summer.
At one point, the panel's top Republican, Trey Gowdy, and Democrat, Elijah Cummings, began shouting and interrupting each other over what information the committee should release while Clinton sat silently in the witness chair, watching the heated exchange and nodding her agreement with Cummings.
And as the evening wore on, Democrats became increasingly impatient for the hearing to end.
"We are better than using taxpayer dollars to try to destroy a campaign," Cummings fumed. "That is not what America is all about."
Clinton replied that her answers had been no different than when she testified before the House and Senate on Benghazi two years ago, then slipped into campaign mode: "I realize there are many currents at work in this committee, but I hope that the statesmanship overcomes partisanship. At some point we have to do this."
Another Republican, Rep Mike Pompeo of Kansas, tried to rile Clinton by asking why her old friend and political operative Sidney Blumenthal had been able to send her personal emails, requests for more security from U.S. staff in Libya did not reach her desk.
Clinton responded by saying that she had accepted that she was responsible for sending Americans into harm's way, but she maintained that the exact details of operational security had been left to professionals within the State Department and were not within her purview.
"i was responsible for quite a lot," Clinton said. "I was not responsible for specific requests and security provisions -- that is not something I was responsible for."
Clinton's calm demeanor cracked under an early evening line of questioning from Alabama Rep. Martha Roby, who wanted to know what she was doing after she left the office and went home from the State Department on the night of the attack.
"I was alone," said Clinton, who seemed surprised by the question.
"The whole night?" asked Roby. "Yes, the whole night," Clinton said before launching into her famous guffawing laugh.
"I don't know why that is funny. Did you have an in-person briefing?" Roby asked.
Clinton, looking at a clock on the wall, replied: "I'm sorry, a little note of levity at 7.15," before assuring Roby she didn't sleep on that fateful night and was in constant contact with aides via a secure phone line.
Hillary's listening face during the Benghazi hearings
Hillary's listening face during the Benghazi hearings 01:49
There were several occasions when Democrats teed up questions for Clinton that allowed her to speak at length and in personal terms about the events in Benghazi.
At the prompting of Cummings, Clinton spoke movingly about the deaths of Stevens and State Department Information management officer Sean Smith from smoke inhalation.
With an eye on the audience outside the Capitol Hill hearing room, Clinton said that she wanted members and "viewers in the public to understand this was the fog of war" in the confused hours after the attack.
And she related how a security agent with Smith and Stevens had "turned back into that diesel smoke desperately trying to find Chris and Sean. He did find Sean and Sean had succumbed to smoke inhalation ... He could not find Chris Stevens."
Her allies on the committee also repeatedly raised questions about the integrity of the investigation. One lawmaker, Adam Schiff of California, said the only reason Clinton was in the room was because she was running for president and had high poll numbers.
But throughout, Republicans maintained that the panel was not created to serve partisan ends.
Gowdy rejected Democratic claims he was leading the investigation to a pre-ordained verdict with the intention of damaging Clinton.
"There is no theory of the prosecution," Gowdy said, raising his voice.
"This is not a prosecution," he reiterated moments later. "I have reached no conclusions."
But the heated exchanges highlighted that the hearing is not only limited to an examination of Clinton's record on Benghazi but also the extent to which partisanship has shaped the investigation, with the Democratic candidates' allies repeatedly charging the GOP with politically motivated maneuvers.
Gowdy, Cummings get heated during Benghazi hearing
Roskam also accused Clinton of using the U.S. intervention in Benghazi to boost her own personal political brand.
"Let me tell you what I think the Clinton doctrine is -- I think it is 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 ... and then turn your attention to other things," Roskam said.
The former secretary of state quickly seized on that comment to further her contention that the hearing was nothing but political grandstanding.
"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 talking about today," she said.
Cummings claimed the probe had wasted 17 months and $4.7 million on a partisan fishing expedition that had turned up no new evidence on the attack, which occurred when she was secretary of state.
Clinton noted that an independent Accountability Review Board that she set up as secretary had pulled no punches, unveiling 29 recommendations for improving security for U.S. diplomats overseas. She also noted that previous attacks on Americans abroad, including in 1983 on a U.S. Marines barracks and the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, had produced changes to U.S. security procedures after nonpartisan investigations by Congress.
Republican Chairman Of Benghazi Committee Caught Making Bogus Accusation Against Hillary Clinton.
This does not appear to be true.
A letter from Elijah Cummings, the ranking Democrat on the committee, reveals that the CIA reviewed the email in question and found that the information in question was not classified.
In response, Gowdy acknowledged the CIA’s view but said that “the name of the alleged source was redacted from the material cleared for public release by someone in the Executive Branch.” Cummings explained that the name was redacted “not for classification reasons, but to protect the individual’s privacy and avoid bringing additional undue attention to this person.”
The dustup comes on the heels of a number of embarrassing revelations from the Benghazi committee. Republican Major Leader Kevin McCarthy bragged that the committee had successfully driven down Hillary Clinton’s poll numbers. Another Republican Congressman, Mark Hanna, said the committee was “designed to go after” Clinton.
Clinton is scheduled to testify in front of the committee this week.
CNN Anchor Asks Bush To Explain His Double Standard For Benghazi And 9/11. It Doesn’t Go Well. During the latest stop in his media tour to defend his brother’s actions as president, Jeb Bush asked on CNN Sunday if anyone actually blames his brother for the attacks on 9/11, saying if they do, “they’re totally marginalized in our society.”
CNN’s Jake Tapper pushed back, asking Bush about the Republican Party’s double standard.
“Obviously Al-Qaeda was responsible for the terrorist attack of 9/11,” Tapper said. “But how do you respond to critics who ask if your brother and his administration bear no responsibility at all, how do you then make the jump that President Obama and Secretary Clinton are responsible for what happened at Benghazi?”
The younger Bush had no coherent answer.
“Well I, it’s the question on Benghazi which is hopefully will now finally get the truth to it, is: was that, was the place secure?” he said, clearly flustered. “They had a responsibility, Department of State, to have proper security.”
Bush pointed out that “it’s what you do after that matters” when it comes to leadership, yet he could not explain why the Republican Party continues to attack Clinton for the 2012 terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya that left a U.S. ambassador dead.
The controversy began on Friday when Donald Trump asserted that the older Bush brother was president at the time of the 9/11 attacks. “When you talk about George Bush, I mean, say what you want, the World Trade Center came down during his time,” Trump said. “He was president, O.K.?”
Jeb Bush then contested the seemingly indisputable comment, calling Trump’s comments “pathetic” and insisting “my brother kept us safe.” The New York Times reported that “[b]laming 9/11 on Mr. Bush is taboo for Republicans and has largely been off-limits for Democrats.” Yet Republicans will force Clinton to testify before a public hearing of the U.S. House Select Committee on Benghazi this week.
Hillary Clinton Has Won the Benghazi Hearing. It was supposed to damage her campaign. Instead it will be a coup.
Still, it’s possible to judge and evaluate a performance. Ignoring our baked-in reactions to either Clinton or House Republicans, how have both sides fared in this long-form exercise in political theater?
The GOP’s job was simple: Try as hard as possible to dispel the belief that the Benghazi committee is a partisan witch hunt, as it was essentially described in an unintentionally revealing moment by House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy. To do that, GOP members had to keep calm, stay sober, and approach Clinton as determined but ultimately fair-minded investigators. For the first hour, they succeeded. Chairman Trey Gowdy was measured and serious, if defensive about his committee—“Not a single member of this committee signed up to investigate you or your email”—while Rep. Peter Roskam of Illinois, who followed Gowdy’s opening statement, asked careful questions aimed at establishing Clinton’s role in building the administration’s policy in Libya.
So far, so good.
By the next hour, however, Republican propriety fell apart. During a testy back-and-forth with Clinton, Rep. Mike Pompeo of Kansas condemned her for lack of visible accountability in the State Department’s handling of security in Benghazi. “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?” he said. “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 they could not find a breach of duty,” Clinton replied.
When Pompeo couldn’t get the answer he wanted, he moved to another claim—that the State Department was meeting with al-Qaida fighters in Libya. “[Y]our officials were meeting with this man on the ground in Benghazi, Libya, discussing security,” he said. When Clinton couldn’t give an answer on who those officials were—she wasn’t aware of the meeting—he yielded his time. It was unclear if Clinton was caught or if Pompeo knew he couldn’t deliver the goods, but it didn’t appear to hurt her. Later in the hearing, after the break, Pompeo would press Clinton on her relationship to Ambassador Christopher Stevens—who was killed in the attack—versus her relationship with Sidney Blumenthal, a longtime ally. Did Stevens have her personal email address? Her home address? Pompeo also pressed Clinton for her approach to management: Why, as the chief diplomat responsible for thousands of employees and facilities, wasn’t she involved in managing each aspect of embassy security?
Likewise, in a similarly long but fruitless exchange, Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio indulged a whole host of breathless—and debunked—claims about Clinton’s involvement in Benghazi: that Clinton lied about protests, that she lied about the relevancy of an anti-Muslim video that had sparked an uproar in the Middle East, and that she attempted to cover up crucial information. This had a rhythm: Jordan would bark a question, Clinton would try to answer, and Jordan would interrupt her. By the end, she was clearly bored and contemptuous of the exchange.
But this was just a preview of the worst moment of the first three hours. Before the hearing broke for its lunch break, Gowdy—after denying that the committee was a “prosecution”—asked aggressive questions about Clinton and her relationship to Blumenthal: whether she solicited his advice, where he got his information on Libya, and why she passed his emails on to others. For a committee ostensibly about the attacks in Benghazi, it was an unusual exchange, made worse when Rep. Elijah Cummings—the ranking Democratic member—demanded that Gowdy release the full transcripts of Blumenthal’s testimony, sparking a loud and bitter fight over the direction of the hearing between the two men. Even for this Congress—among the most unpopular in recent history—it was embarrassing.
Which brings us to Hillary Clinton’s performance. At times, she stumbled. Pompeo’s questioning, for instance, was well-structured, and it’s almost a guarantee that Clinton’s claims of ignorance with regard to meetings in Libya will find themselves into campaign advertisements. Overall, however, Clinton was strong. Throughout, she showed her clear knowledge of foreign policy questions, defended the administration and her tenure at the State Department, and laid out her vision for how American diplomacy should operate.
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.
You don’t have to like Clinton to see that this is a coup for her campaign. Not only has she bolstered her image as a smart, competent policymaker, but she’s even defused her email controversy—or come close to it—by talking about the issue in a calm, nonadversarial way. Meanwhile, by the fifth hour, committee members like Roskam were hitting Clinton for having a skilled press team.
All the internet polls say Bernie won the hearing! The Media is just completely owned by Wall Street.
When this began, conventional wisdom was that Hillary had to survive the scrutiny. That at best, this would be a wash. Toward the end, however, that wisdom changed. “Unless something happens,” wrote conservative columnist Matt Lewis on Twitter, “it’s starting to look like Hillary Clinton won’t merely survive this hearing—she will have come out on top.”
Whether or not Republicans built the Benghazi committee to damage Clinton’s campaign, it’s clear they weren’t opposed to an outcome where Clinton was harmed. Instead, we have the opposite. Thanks to the committee, Clinton might escape a scandal, neutralize an attack, and enter the first major stretch of the presidential race with the wind at her back.
Conservative Reviews Are In: Benghazi Hearing A Bust. Some of Hillary Clinton's top critics think she won the day.
Seven months after the panel revealed that Clinton used a private e-mail server as secretary of state—a scoop that committee chairman Trey Gowdy repeatedly took credit for—bringing heaps of negative press to the Democratic presidential front-runner and a dip in her poll numbers, Clinton effectively turned the tables on her most nettlesome GOP inquisitors. During 8 hours and 20 minutes of testimony, Clinton deftly handled some hostile and at times pointed questioning from Republicans, keeping her cool and letting Democrats on the committee handle the political attacks.
In the end, Republicans threw some red meat to their conservative base but failed to land a blow to Clinton's credibility or unearth a meaningful discovery about the 2012 attacks on a U.S. outpost that left four Americans dead in Libya. It wasn't just Clinton loyalists saying that.
"It was all a political spectacle."Erick Erickson
Among House Republicans, there were no high-fives: A half-dozen lawmakers surveyed offered a muted response when asked about the hearing on Thursday afternoon. Many conservative commentators were unimpressed, if not angry with the proceedings.
"So a hearing billed as an epic, High Noon-style confrontation—granted, the hype came from the media, not Republican committee members themselves—instead turned out to be a somewhat interesting look at a few limited aspects of the Benghazi affair," wrote Byron York at the Washington Examiner. "In other words, no big deal. And that is very, very good news for Hillary Clinton."
Conservative radio host Erick Erickson described the hearings as "a waste of time because everything about it is politicized and nothing is going to happen."
"There will be no scalp collection," he wrote in a blog post, adding: "It was all a political spectacle. God bless Trey Gowdy for trying to learn the facts and understand what happened. But the rest of it was just a carnival road show of back bench congresscritters playing to the cameras and Hillary Clinton working hard to play persecuted victim."
Erickson lamented that House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy's recent comments on Fox News bragging about the Benghazi committee's deleterious effect on Clinton's poll numbers "discredited this episode before it began in the minds of the press." McCarthy's remarks were followed by a second Republican congressman, New York's Richard Hanna, saying the panel was created "to go after people and an individual, Hillary Clinton." Meanwhile, a former Benghazi committee staffer says he's preparing to sue the panel for allegedly being fired because he didn't want to target Clinton.
Days before the hearing, Republican Chairman Trey Gowdy told Politico that "these have been among the worst weeks of my life" and went on CBS to instruct his colleagues to "shut up" about the work of the committee, insisting it was about fact-finding and not politics. The hearing didn't provide much to boost his outlook.
One exchange that drew digital eye-rolls featured Representative Mike Pompeo of Kansas grilling Clinton on whether former Ambassador Chris Stevens had similar "access" to her as her confidant Sid Blumenthal by way of private email, phone number and home address. This prompted a former U.S. Ambassador to Russia, Michael McFaul, to tweet out a lesson in the way diplomats communicate.
Michael McFaul
Cables (sent by secure email) are the way that diplomats use most often to communicate with State Dept in DC.
Stephen Hayes
Pompeo's second round of questioning was snarky in tone and ineffective in substance. A net negative.
John Podhoretz
Why doesn't Pompeo just go over and swear her in for president now--if he goes on like this he'll practically get her elected
Another sign of the way political tides where turning: The Fox News Channel, which has taken a special interest in the issue of Benghazi in recent years, cut away from the hearing midway through while other networks continued to carry it live.
Matt Lewis, a writer at the conservative Daily Caller, sounded the alarm mid-afternoon.
Matt Lewis
Unless something happens, it's starting to look like Hillary Clinton won't merely survive this hearing -- she will have come out on top.
Ever since the McCarthy gaffe, everything has worked out for Hillary (debate, Biden, & now this hearing). She even seems more likable now.
Right-wing radio host Rush Limbaugh also sensed the ground shifting, telling listeners Thursday that the media had already decided that it wanted to "able to claim that the Republicans did not land a glove on Mrs. Clinton. That she showed up and that she looked good and that she was composed and that she triumphed over this, and the Republicans weren't able to do a thing about it. That is the objective."
The best reason to shut down the Benghazi committee. The unique feature of the House Select Committee on Benghazi is that its sole mission is to inflict political damage on a person who already has been exonerated by the collective force of seven congressional committees.
The Benghazi committee was established by the House in May 2014 to investigate the terrorist assault that killed four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, in Benghazi, Libya. It was sold as an effort to find out what happened, whether the administration could have done more to prevent the attacks, and what could be done to protect US diplomatic facilities in the future. But the Benghazi inquisition is beginning to backfire on the Republicans because they really created it to hurt Hillary Clinton's chances of becoming the next president.
Last month, House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy crippled the committee, and his own bid to become House speaker, by announcing on national television that its actions were bringing down Clinton's poll numbers. Since then, a fired staffer has accused the committee of dismissing him because he refused to target the Democratic presidential frontrunner, and a moderate House Republican from Clinton's adoptive home state of New York has said the committee was "designed" to hit her.
On Thursday, committee Republicans opened a made-for-television hearing with Clinton with three hours of questions that established no new facts, other than that Stevens didn't have her private email address. Clinton fielded their questions calmly, acknowledged that she was a force who pushed for the US to intervene in Libya in 2011 and disputed the notion that Sidney Blumenthal, a longtime confidant who did not work at State, was a top adviser to her.
The only real flare-up in the first part of the hearing was over whether Blumenthal's deposition, taken in June, should be made public. It was Democrats who argued for that, and Republicans voted down their motion.
None of it had anything to do with preventing future attacks or learning new information about the assault that killed Americans in Benghazi. The committee's modus operandi has been to focus on elements of the story unrelated to the attacks. Indeed, last Friday, Huma Abedin, the vice chair of Clinton's campaign and a former deputy chief of staff at State, testified before the committee behind closed doors. Clinton campaign spokesperson Nick Merrill said last Thursday night that Abedin, who is Clinton's closest personal aide, has no knowledge of Benghazi. He called the GOP's focus on her "just another tactic in their partisan plan to go after Hillary Clinton."
Clinton said Thursday that it was "deeply distressing" that she was being blamed for the death of Stevens, whom she regarded as a friend, and noted that US officials were not harangued after attacks that killed Americans during the Reagan and Clinton administrations.
It would be smart politically for Republicans to dissolve the panel before it helps Clinton and hurts them any more. But more important, the committee should be disbanded because it is a threat to the effectiveness of a very important congressional check on executive power. The viability of that tool, the select committee, should be preserved — even though it's being abused now.
When run properly, select committees are a vital tool for Congress
Throughout the history of the union, Congress has used select committees to investigate major national issues that are outside either the scope or the capacity of one of its existing committees.
The Senate Watergate Committee, the House and Senate select committees on the Iran/Contra affair, and the Senate Whitewater Committee are among the most famous in recent history. Joseph McCarthy infamously used the House Un-American Activities Committee and the Senate's Permanent Select Committee on Investigations, both of which functioned like select committees, to target suspected communists in civilian government, Hollywood, and — leading to his eventual undoing — the Army. While they aren't always investigative in nature — House Democrats had a select committee on climate change for a while — the most prominent and consequential generally are.
They also tend to have a naturally partisan tilt. A House or Senate controlled by Democrats is less likely to appoint a select committee to investigate a Democratic president, and the same is true for Republican-run chambers when a Republican is in the White House. Because the president has power over the Justice Department and the FBI — the ability, in some cases, to prevent probing — it's a good thing that Congress has the authority to conduct its own special investigations.
So it's taken as a given in Washington that select committees are usually established with a dual purpose in mind: that they will uncover wrongdoing — usually by the administration of the other party's president — and that the wrongdoing will hurt the president and his party politically.
The key, though, is that there are actual substantive misdeeds that can be revealed to the public, which puts pressure on federal investigators and prosecutors to bring charges against the president or members of his administration — or at the very least force the administration to make changes that improve governance.
But in Clinton's case, no one in a position of authority has made a plausible argument that she was guilty of malfeasance or serious negligence. There was no reason for House Republicans to think that the select committee would turn up anything related to the Benghazi attacks that hadn't been exhumed already by Congress.
The Benghazi committee's work is at odds with its purpose
On the surface, the Benghazi committee was established to look into some important matters.
- What, if anything, the administration could have done to prevent the assault on US facilities in Benghazi, Libya, in September 2012
- Whether the administration responded appropriately to the attacks
- Whether anyone in the administration acted in an improper or criminal way in relation to the attacks
- How the executive branch can limit the risk of another similar tragedy
In practice, it has done none of those things — primarily because several other congressional committees and a State Department review board already investigated them. Seven existing congressional committees conducted investigations into aspects of the Benghazi attacks before the select committee was created, and not one of them concluded that Clinton was guilty of any wrongdoing.
But that wasn't good enough for House Republicans, who were under immense pressure from constituents and talk radio hosts to keep the spotlight on Clinton. So they formed a select committee in May 2014, with the help of a handful of Democrats facing reelection in tough districts who had reason to fear that they would look like they were covering up if they voted against another investigation.
With nothing of substance left to look into, the Benghazi committee, run by former prosecutor Trey Gowdy, has spent about 17 months obtaining documents that later leaked into public view. They are almost exclusively related to Clinton's use of a private email server during her time at the State Department. And they surely would have come out anyway as a result of a series of federal lawsuits — some launched by political groups obsessed with destroying Clinton — aimed at forcing the State Department to comply with Freedom of Information Act requests.
If the purpose was to find out what happened and prevent it from happening again, the committee frustrated its goal by becoming so partisan and so focused on one person.
One thing we can all be entirely certain of is that Hillary Clinton's email didn't attack the US diplomatic and intelligence compounds in Benghazi. And anyone who thinks Clinton ordered, encouraged, or condoned the murders of these Americans is living in a very dark and twisted fantasy world.
For the good of Congress, kill the Benghazi committee and keep select committees alive
Congress needs the select committee option to focus attention on grievous wrongdoing by a president or his/her administration. It has proven, at times, to be a very effective truth serum for powerful officials in the past.
The Senate Watergate Committee's revelations included testimony from White House Counsel John Dean that President Richard Nixon was directly involved in the cover-up after a break-in at the Democratic National Committee's headquarters in Washington's Watergate building.
But the continued operation of the Benghazi committee's three-ring, $4.6 million circus risks making that tool less effective in the future. It simply wasn't designed to investigate things that never happened — like Clinton bearing primary responsibility for the Benghazi attacks. Select committees can have a partisan edge, but they shouldn't be solely about partisan politics. They should be directed toward solving mysteries for the American public.
There's no mystery here: Hillary Clinton isn't to blame for the Benghazi attacks.
What GOP Candidates Are Tweeting About Clinton's Benghazi Testimony.
Neurosurgeon Ben Carson has climbed to an 8-point lead over the real estate mogul in the crucial first-in-the-nation caucus state, according to a new poll this morning from Quinnipiac University. It marks the first time Trump has trailed in an Iowa poll in more than three months.
Carson garners 28 percent support from likely Republican caucus-goers in the Hawkeye state, climbing 8 points over the last month to his highest support there yet. Trump earns 20 percent, dropping 7 points in the last month.
Carson’s new lead in Iowa comes mostly thanks to growing support among women. While Trump and Carson each receive roughly the same amount of support from men, Carson earns 33 percent of women compared to only 13 percent for Trump.
Trump was criticized during the first Fox News debate by moderator Megyn Kelly for referring to women as “slobs” and “fat pigs.” He later reportedly said “"Look at that face! Would anyone vote for that?” about fellow Republican contender Carly Fiorina.
Florida Sen. Marco Rubio is also gaining momentum, climbing 8 points in the last month to reach 13 percent support. Texas Sen. Ted Cruz clocked in at 10 percent, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul took 6 percent, and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and businesswoman Carly Fiorina are at 5 percent. The rest of the field had 3 percent or less.
Carson’s new lead comes as the candidate takes a break from public campaign events to go on a book tour. The neurosurgeon had generated controversy over his comments about gun control and a potential Muslim president before beginning his book tour.
The Quinnipiac poll comes just one day after an ABC News/Washington Post poll showed Trump holding steady, leading Carson by 10 points. And more than four in 10 Republicans nationally think Trump will ultimately win the GOP nomination -– and with good reason: he’s led national polls for more than three months.
Carson’s new lead is bolstered by positive ratings across the board: 89 percent of GOP likely caucusgoers say Carson is honest and trustworthy and 84 percent have a favorable view of him –- both the best in the Republican field. Still, Trump is seen as the best candidate to handle the economy and illegal immigration.
Carson Surges Past Trump in Latest Bloomberg Politics/Des Moines Register Iowa Poll.
A new Bloomberg Politics/Des Moines Register Iowa Poll shows the retired neurosurgeon is backed by 28 percent of likely Republican caucus participants, up 10 percentage points since late August. Trump is supported by 19 percent, down 4 points.
Those planning to caucus for Carson are drawn to his personal story and his status as a non-career politician, the poll shows, and they view him as someone who approaches issues with common sense and with guidance from his faith in God.
“His standing has improved in every way pollsters traditionally measure,” said J. Ann Selzer, president of West Des Moines-based Selzer & Co., which conducted the poll. “This might be a wake-up for Donald Trump.”
Read the questions and methodology here.
The Iowa Poll, taken Oct. 16-19, included 401 likely Republican caucus participants. On the full sample, it has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.9 percentage points; the margin is higher in subgroups.
Evangelical Christians, who represent 42 percent of likely Republican caucus participants in the poll, appear to be aligning behind Carson. He received support from a third of that group, up from 21 percent in August, when he only narrowly led Trump with that key segment.
Cruz is unlikely to make large gains without support softening for Carson or Trump, who hold a combined 51 percent of evangelical likely GOP caucus participants.
Carson's rise has also been fueled by gains with Tea Party supporters. Among those who consider themselves part of the limited-government movement, he gets a third of the support, up from 21 percent in August.
More than two-thirds of likely GOP caucus-goers also say that on the basis of religion alone, it would be unacceptable for a Muslim to be a U.S. president—a view Carson espoused in a Sept. 20 appearance on NBC's Meet the Press.
When asked which two or three candidates they'd like to see drop out, Trump, at 25 percent, received the highest share. He's followed on the dropout wish list by former Florida Governor Jeb Bush and South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham, both at 22 percent. Next is former New York Governor George Pataki at 21 percent.
Even after a month of super-PAC advertising on Bush's behalf in Iowa, he's picked by just 5 percent, down 1 point from August. His favorability rating has moved up 5 percentage points since August to 50 percent, however, his highest level in the past year.
Bush's name continues to burden him. Among likely caucus participants, 47 percent say that being the son and brother of two past presidents would be a bad thing because he would forever be in their shadow, while 42 percent say it would be a good because he knows the job's duties.
Carson's Appeal
As Trump dominated cable television over the summer, Carson quietly continued to build a network of Iowa supporters. He easily has the highest favorability rating among Republican candidates, with 84 percent of likely GOP caucus-goers seeing him positively, up from 79 percent in August.
Those glowing views of Carson, who rose from poverty to professional success and is seeking to become the nation's second black president, could make it hard for Trump, Cruz, or other rivals to attack him as the campaign heats up this fall.
In interviews, Carson supporters brought up his life story, candor, and non-political resume. Some also talked about how they think he could win black votes in a general election.
“He just says what he believes and I like that,” said Bruce Lindberg, 56, a chiropractor from Ottumwa who is leaning toward supporting Carson. “I like his story. He's been a hard worker and I don't think anything was given to him. He knows what it takes to be successful and that you have to work for it.”
The poll suggests Carson has more room to grow in Iowa, partly because his controversial statements generally aren't turning off even other candidates' supporters. Among that group, 56 percent find “very attractive” his statements that the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, is the worst thing since slavery, while 41 percent feel that way about his opposition to a Muslim president. Nearly half find “very attractive” his statement that Adolf Hitler's mass murder of Jews might not have been as successful if more people had been armed.
Another positive factor for Carson is Iowans' strong desire for an outsider candidate. Asked to pick the bigger risk for the country's future, 60 percent said it was electing “the same sort of person who has served as president for many decades,” who would likely do things the way they'd always been done, while 31 percent see bigger risk in electing someone who hasn't held office and doesn't know how government works.
Two areas where Carson is less strong are his lack of foreign policy experience and his past research on aborted fetus tissue. Each registered as unattractive with a majority of likely GOP caucus-goers who aren't already supporting him.
Testing potential lines of attack against other top Republicans:
- About half of likely GOP caucus-goers said they weren't bothered that Trump insults rivals.
- Bush's advocacy for a “path to legal residence for immigrants who are in this country illegally” makes 63 percent less supportive of him.
- When told Cruz has “led the charge for government shutdowns,” 67 percent said they weren't bothered.
- After hearing that Carly Fiorina was “fired as CEO at Hewlett-Packard with a $21 million severance package after the company lost stock value,” 65 percent said they weren't concerned.
- Rubio's youthfulness is mostly a non-issue, with 93 percent saying they're not bothered that the 44-year-old would be the third-youngest president.
As in a Bloomberg Politics/Saint Anselm New Hampshire Poll released Wednesday, more of Trump's Iowa supporters are decided than Carson's. Roughly a third of Trump supporters say their minds are made up, while just 15 percent of Carson's supporters say that.
Finding Signs Of Unity, Paul Ryan Officially Enters House Speaker Race.
Ryan had said he would run if certain conditions were met. It's not clear whether they were. He wanted the Republican Party to unite behind his candidacy and change the rules to make it harder for a speaker to be ousted, and he wanted more time to spend with his family.
He saw some signs of that unity he wanted this week. As NPR's Ailsa Chang reported, he got support, though not an endorsement, from the House Freedom Caucus earlier this week. About two-thirds of the roughly 40-member caucus said they would support Ryan. They didn't reach their supermajority threshold of 80 percent to officially endorse Ryan, but the two-thirds support would give him more than the 218 votes needed to become speaker.
Ryan called it a "positive step toward a unified Republican team." He also got support from the conservative Republican Study Committee and the moderate Tuesday Group.
Ryan had said on multiple occasions that he didn't want the job, but several prominent Republicans including outgoing House Speaker John Boehner and Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy pressured him to enter the race.
Florida Republican Daniel Webster remains a candidate and has the official endorsement of the Freedom Caucus. But since the majority of that caucus now supports Ryan, he has more than the 218 votes needed to become speaker.
There are other Republicans who might want the job, though none are likely to have wide enough support to get 218 votes, as NPR's Susan Davis reported.
After current Speaker Boehner announced he would step down, McCarthy, the current House minority leader, was widely seen as Boehner's replacement. But he abruptly withdrew his name from the race earlier this month. After McCarthy withdrew, Ryan had sent a release less than 20 minutes later, reading, "I will not be a candidate."
John Kasich Jabs (And Praises) Obama in Town Hall. In a town hall meeting at Dartmouth College set to air Friday morning on MSNBC's "Morning Joe," presidential hopeful John Kasich touched on a giant slew of topics, from dysfunction in Washington to the success of the auto bailout, the Iran deal, criminal justice reform, campaign finance, and much more.
Kasich, the Republican governor of Ohio, blasted the Iran deal, saying Iran is "getting very, very close to where I would say they are violating the treaty."
He also critiqued the Obama administration's relationship with Israel, lamenting that, "our president wont even meet with the prime minister. I couldn't believe it." If Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu wanted to see him, he said he'd be happy to sit down with him in D.C.
Kasich was also asked to name something President Obama has done well, and mentioned the administration's handling of the auto industry. Steve Rattner, who was participating in the town hall, and who served on Obama's Presidential Task Force on the Auto Industry, was actually the one to ask the question.
Kasich has been pinning his hopes on performing well in New Hampshire. Last week he traversed up and down the state in a multi-day bus tour, culminating in an announcement of his broad proposals to balance the budget within eight years.
The town hall hosted by Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski will air on "Morning Joe" between 6:00 and 9:00 a.m. Friday morning on MSNBC.
Lincoln Chafee drops out of Democratic primary race. Former Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee ended his long-shot bid for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination Friday, his campaign announced in a statement.
Chafee is set to speak on his decision momentarily at the DNC's annual Women's Leadership Forum in Washington.
"As you know I have been campaigning on a platform of Prosperity Through Peace," Chafee is expected to say according to prepared remarks provided by the campaign. "But after much thought I have decided to end my campaign for president today. I would like to take this opportunity one last time to advocate for a chance be given to peace."
The Democrat declared his presidential campaign in June, shortly after announcing that he had formed an exploratory committee.
Chafee has spent most of his life as a Republican. He was nominated to his late father's Senate seat in 1999 and then was elected as a Republican in 2000. He served only one term, losing to Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse in 2006, but then successfully ran for governor of Rhode Island as an independent.
Facing long odds and slumping in the polls, Chafee decided not to run for reelection in 2014. He told CNN last month that he made that decision because he wanted to run for president.
He has been one of the most aggressive candidates against frontrunner Hillary Clinton, calling her out at multiple times about her 2002 vote in favor of the Iraq War.
"Considering the premise for invading Iraq was based on falsehoods and considering the ramifications we live with now from that mistake, I would argue that anybody who voted for the Iraq War should not be president and certainly should not be leading the Democratic Party," he said in an interview with CNN.
Chafee was never supremely confident in his chances to win the nomination. When asked by CNN in April if he would bet on himself to win, he simply responded, "I can't," before catting himself and saying that he is "in it to win."
Mika is off from the show today. She has her 'Know Your Values' event in Boston this weekend which is sold out. There are tickets still available for the event down in Orlando next month.
