stevens into benghazi? >> i was personally told by the officials who were in the state department, who were immediately above chris, who were making the plans for him to go in, that it was going to be expeditionary diplomacy. it was going to require him to make a lot of judgments on the ground about what he could accomplish and, including, where it would be safe for him to be and how long for him to stay. and i think the initial decision was, you know, up to 30 days and reassess, but it could have been ten days, it could have been 60 days, depend upon what he found and what he reported back to us. >> and possibly what was determined about the danger of benghazi. who were those officials, secretary? >> there were a number of officials who were -- >> that were advising you on the security specifically. >> well, with respect to the security, this was a particular concern of the assistant secretary for the bureau in which chris worked. >> i'm sorry. what was that person's name? >> assistant secretary jeff feldm

presence in benghazi. did you give his opinions a lot of weight and respect. >> do you recall him advocated for continued u.s. presence, specifically in benghazi? >> yes, he did.$hv úp &h(lc% >> in fact, ambassador stephens e-mails, which this committee had for more than a year confirmed what you stated. i would ask consent to enter this document into the record and it's being passed out for members of the committee. >> without objection. >> i understand this e-mail is not one you've seen before as it was not addressed or sent to you, is that correct? >> that's correct. >> in the e-mail before you he wrote this proposal fr continued presence in benghazi. option b was a virtual presence with zero full time staff in benghazi. special envoy stephens sent this to jean chris, then ambassador to libya. at the time they had a combined 83 years of foreign service experience. would the recommendation of this team be given fair amount of weight in this department? >> it would. >> is that the way it should work? >>

stevens into benghazi? >> i was personally told by the officials who were in the state department who were immediately above chris, who were making the plans for him to go in, that it was going to be expeditionary diplomacy. it was going to require him to make a lot of judgments on the ground. about what he could accomplish and including where it would be safe for him to be and how long for him to stay. and i think the initial decision was, you know, up to 30 days and reassess. but it could have been 10 days. it could have been 60 days depending upon what he found and what he reported back to us. >> is and possibly what was determined about the danger of benghazi. who were those officials? >> there were a number of officials -- >> advising you on the security specifically? >> with respect to the security, this was a particular concern of the assistant secretary for the bureau in which chris worked. >> i'm sorry. what was that person's name? >> assistant secretary jeff feldman. and the security for diplomati

stevens in to benghazi? secretary clinton: i was personally told by the officials who were in the state department who were immediately above chris who were making the plans for him to go in that it was going to be expeditiously -- expeditionary diplomacy. it was going to require him to make a lot of judgments on the ground about what he could where sh and including it would be safe for him to be and how long for him to say. i think the initial decision was up to 30 days and reassess, but it could have been 10 days, it could have been 60 days depending upon what he found and reported back to us. mrs. brooks: and possibly what was determined about the dange every of benghazi. who were those officials? secretary clinton: there were a number of officials -- mrs. brooks: that were advising you on the security specifically. secretary clinton: with respect to the security, this was a particular concern of the assistant secretary for the bureau in which chris worked. mrs. brooks: what was that person's name? secret

. >> it appears leaving benghazi with respect to all of that danger, leaving benghazi was not an option in 2012. and i yield back. >> if i could just quickly respond, never a recommendation from any intelligence official in our government, from any official in the state department, or from any other person with knowledge of our presence in benghazi to shut down benghazi even after the two attacks that the compound suffered. and perhaps you would wonder why. but i can tell you it was thought that the mission in benghazi, in conjunction with the cia mission, was vital to our national interest. >> the gentlelady yields back. >> very much, mr. chairman. i just want to clarify. i was asking secretary clinton a moment ago i mentioned an e-mail that had gone from ambassador chris stevens to deputy secretary lamb. what i meant to say was a cable. >> the record will reflect that. >> thank you, mr. chairman. secretary clinton, i'm pleased that you finally have the opportunity to be here. before i start my line of questioning, i just want to clarify with regards to the april, june 2012 incidents,

>> for everyone or for benghazi? >> i'm sorry, yes, ma'am, related to benghazi and libya, do you know how many there were? >> no, i do not know. >> ma'am there were over 100 plus. second quarter do you know how many there were? >> no, i do not. >> ma'am, there were 172ish. might have been 171 or 173. how many were there in july and august and then in that week, a few days before the attacks, do you know? >> there were a number of them, i know that. >> yes, ma'am, 83, by our count. that is over 600 requests. you've testified here this morning that you had none of those reach your desk? >> that's correct. >> madam secretary, mr. blumenthal wrote you 150 e-mails. appears from materials all of those reached your desk. can you tell us why security requests from your professionals the man you just testified which i agree are incredibly professional, incredibly capable people, trained in the the art f keeping us all safe, none of those made it to you, but a man who was a friend of yours, who never been to libya, didn't know

in benghazi. moreover, regular communications between africom -- which is the dod command -- and the special mission benghazi could have facilitated the prepositioning of military assets in a region where there were very real questions over the host country's ability to protect our diplomatic personnel. secretary clinton, within the weeks of the terror it attacks in benghazi -- terrorist attacks in benghazi happening, following that, i understand you partner with the the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff to establish and deploy five interagency security assessment teams to assess our security positive -- posture and needs at at least 19 high threat posts in 13 different countries. in fact, deputy secretary new ne testified emerging security challenges were addressed. why did you partner with the department of defense to conduct such a high priority review, and was it effective in addressing the shortfalls in benghazi and applying it for other locations? >> congressman -- congresswoman, thank y

to extend benghazi through 2012. and he sent it to undersecretary patrick kennedy who approved it. another high-level official who, by the way, for the record state department has given us none of undersecretary patrick kennedy's e-mails yet. same with jeffrey feltman, very high-level officials within the state department. are you familiar with that memo sent on december 27th entitled "future of operations in benghazi, libya"? are you familiar with that memo and if so did secretary feltman discuss that with you at the time and discuss extending the mission in benghazi in democrats of '11? >> i'm familiar that there was an ongoing discussion about the future of the mission in benghazi -- >> a discussion between whom, ma'am? >> between all of the relevant officials in the state department. >> help me with understanding -- >> jeff feltman was one of them. >> who else? >> chris stevens was one of them. but there were many others who had information and expertise to add to it. and there was a recommendation that benghazi

in benghazi. let's not use my words. let's use theirs. this can be found at tab 31. the e-mail says and it stated february 9, 2012, one writes to the other about an encounter that she had with you. "also the secretary asked last if we still have a presence in benghazi." i think she would be upset to hear yes, but we do -- >> i'm struck by the first part. based upon the e-mail stacks here that you engaged in a lot of conversations and briefings, so i'm assuming that this conversation with this member of your staff took place in one of those briefings, but then she sent this e-mail asking about this. how can this be that two of your staffers are e-mailing about whether or not you even knew that we had a presence in benghazi in 2012 with all your interests in libya in 2011, including in october of 2011 and that months later we come to find out that you didn't even know if we had a presence there. >> well, i can't comment on what has been reported. of course, i knew we had a presence in benghazi. i kn

and you had a lot to lose if benghazi unravelled. if libya unravelled, you had had a lot to lose, based on the victories, the sunday shows, based on the favorable accolades that were coming. if it went the wrong direction it would be on you. and if it was stable and it was the right direction you were the beneficiary of that. so the question is, how is it possible that these urgent requests that came in, how did they not break through to the very upper levels of your inner circle? people who are here today, people who served you? how did those requests from two ambassadors, ambassador kretz and ambassador stevens that came in on these dates, june, july, of 2012, how did those break through? you told us they were not your job, basically, you said you were not responsible. but here is in theory. to admit the need for more security was to admit that there was a deteriorating situation. and to admit a deteriorating situation didn't fit your narrative of a successful foreign policy. where did i get that wrong? >> congressman, look, we kne

operation in benghazi was temporary. >> there was not an active plan for a consulate in benghazi at any point during this period. that is not what the compound in benghazi was. it was a temporary facility placed there to help us make a determination as to what we would need going forward in benghazi. >> reporter: ambassador stevens deputy greg hicks testified under oath shortly after the attack, but a specific conversation he had with stevens about mrs. clinton's plan. >> did i tell the accountability review board that secretary clinton wanted the post made permanent, ambassador pickering was surprised, he looked both ways to the members of the board saying this is the seventh floor know about this? . >> reporter: the seventh floor is short hand for the executive suite at the state department where mrs. clinton's office was. stevens had to be in benghazi because of a budget with the state department, lou? lou: catherine, thank you very much, catherine herridge, our chief intelligence correspondent. >>> a biker in texas was stopped on a busy intersection, she saw a kitten fall out of a r

>> for everyone or for benghazi? >> i'm sorry, yes, ma'am, related to benghazi and libya, do you know how many? >> no, i do not know. >> ma'am, there were just over 100 plus. in the second quarter, do you know how many there were? >> no, i do not. >> ma'am, there were 172-ish. might have been 171 or 173. how many were there in july and august and then in the week a few days before the attacks, do you know? >> a number of them, i know that. >> 83, by our count. that's over 600 requests. you've testified here this morning you had none of those reach your desk, is that correct also? >> that's correct. >> mr. blumenthal wrote you 150 e-mailings. it appears from the materials we've read all of those reached your desk. can you tell us why security requests from your professionals, the men that you just testified, which i agree, are incredibly professional, incredibly capable people, trained in the art of keeping us all safe. none of those made it to you. but a man who was a friend of yours,ed who never been to libya, didn'

that's why chris was in benghazi. it's why he served previously in syria, egypt, saudi arabia and jerusalem during the second. nobody knew the dangs of libya better. a weak government, extremist groups, rampant instability. but chris chose to go to benghazi because he understood america had to be represented there at that pivotal time. he knew that eastern libya was where the revolution had begun and that unrest there could derail the country's fragile transition to democracy. and if extremists gained a foothold, they would have the chance to destabilize the entire region, including egypt and tunisia. he also knew how urgent it was to ensure that the weapons gadhafi had left strewn across the country, including shoulder-fired missiles that could knock an airplane out of the sky, did not fall into the wrong hands. the nearest israeli airport is just a day's drive from the libyan border. above all, chris understood that most people in libya or anywhere reject the extremists' argument that violence can ever be a path to

presence in benghazi. republicans asked more than 45 questions about david brock media matters -- i have no idea what that is even and affiliated entities -- but no questions, no questions about ambassador stevens and other u.s. personnel in benghazi. that's sidney blumenthal by the numbers. now, there were a couple lines of questioning i did understand. one of them was about the accountability review board report. now not the one actually that's relevant today about benghazi but one written 17 years ago about a different attack, in tanzania. mr. pompeo put up a very nice chart. they've got great exhibits. selectively quoting from that report. and the implication was the secretary should have security, should be the one deciding the security at every facility around the world. what he didn't read to you was part of the same section of that report which says, quote, in the process the secretary should rec-examine the present structue with the objective of assuring that a single, high-ranking officer is acco

in benghazi. >> thank you. so this isat process that the joint teams of d.o.d. and state that goes out initially looked at the 19 posts. that's great that they come back with a report. it's kind of like, you know, the seven reports to this. and now we have another committee. we can keep having committees to look into benghazi, but if we never act on them, it doesn't help our men and women on the ground. and that's what i'm focused on. so what i want to know is with these isats, so they came back with their recommendations to you. have they been resourced? are they institutionalized? what has been done with this process so that it's not a snap shot in time in reaction to benghazi attack, and i want to make sure that, you know, at the very least, we're continuing the cooperation or at least there's some sort of institutionalization of the review process to make sure that if it's not those 19 posts, if the shift now is there's 20 posts or some other posts, what has been done to make sure it's institu

presence in benghazi. and republicans asked more than 45 questions about david brock, media matters, i have no idea what that is even, and affiliated entities, but no questions -- no questions -- about ambassador stevens and other u.s. personnel in benghazi. that's sidney blumenthal by the numbers. now, there were a couple lines of questioning that i did understand. one of them was about the accountability review board report. now, not the one that's actually relevant to today about benghazi, but the one that was written 17 years ago about a different attack in tanzania. there was a very nice chart. they've got great exhibits. selectively quoting from that report. and the implication was the secretary should have security, should be the one deciding the security at every facility around the world. what he didn't read to you was part of the same section of that report, which says, quote, in the process the secretary should re-examine the present organizational structure with the objective of assuring that a

you spent a lot of time in benghazi. have the facts that have come out around the investigation demonstrated na they didn't realise how dangerous benghazi was. >> it's difficult to talk about protection of embassies. i spent time in benghazi, kaboom, baghdad. times that - the time that it shifts, happens without us detecting how much the threat is. hindsight is 20/20. that's a lot of what is going on. at the time of the incident, we knew that tensions were rising and violence escalating, that was so much hope on the ground. it was part of what judgment. >> during the hearings, broadly speaking, over the course of them, have you learnt anything useful about the way the state department works in protecting our embassies overseas, or the inner thinking of the administration about what was going on in libya? >> not really. not from these hearings. what is important to say is that probably the secretary of state was not aware of the situation in tripoli completely 100% and benghazi. and as said. it was hard for us. we knew th

presence in benghazi. and republicans asked more than 45 questions about david brock media matters, i have no idea what that is even and affiliate entities, but no questions, no questions about ambassador stevens and other u.s. personnel in benghazi. that's sidney blumenthal by the numbers. now, there were a couple lines of questioning that i did understand. one of them was about the accountability review board report. not the one actually that's relevant to today about benghazi, but the one that was written 17 years ago about a different attack in tanzania. mr. pompeo put up a very nice chart. they've got great exhibits. selectively quoting from that report and the implication was that the secretary should have security, should be the one deciding the security at every facility around the world. what he didn't read to you was part of the same section of that report which says, quote, in the process the secretary should re-examine the present organizational structure with the objective of assuring that a s

>> no, she should be, on the issue of benghazi. if they think that they can do a better job than the house intelligence committee, the house armed servicic committee, controlled by republicans, then we have got to see what they are going to do differently. sharyl: hillary clinton is appearing before the committee. should president obama answer questions about benghazi? >> i think he has answered questions within the white house. but as the head of the executive branch, i don'think you should go before congress. thereris something called the separation of powers. sharyl: administsttion officials acknowledged thahamistakes were made, but they said there was no malice behind it. and yet, nobody high up as part of making the decisions have been held accountable. in fact, if anything, a lot of them have been promoted. why is that? >> i think that is a fair i point. don't know why. there should have been at mid-level management, a lot of good rerting has identified failures of communication, but we know fromhe house armed services and in

benghazi. there were 20 attacks. so what we're trying to find out how many attacks would have been necessary that she knew about would have been necessary for her to give additional security in benghazi. especially after she admits that she got briefed every day she was in d.c. by the cia and these are the very cia reports that they are talking about. there was 4500 pages of those reports from january 1st to the attack. so we just want to know how many pages it would have taken, how many attacks it would have taken, what it would have taken to beef up, get more security to protect the u.s. personnel on the ground. >> there are additional documents that we will have the opportunity in the next few hours to ask her about that she's not been asked about in previous hearings. so. >> why shouldn't the testimony be released to the public? >> i think these large discussions about what is released and what isn't released need to be made in the totality of the whole investigation. so a as the chairman h

to extend benghazi through 2012. and he sent it to undersecretary patrick kennedy who approved it. another high-level official who, by the way, for the record state department has given us none of undersecretary patrick kennedy's e-mails yet. same with jeffrey feltman, very high-level officials within the state department. are you familiar with that memo sent on december 27th entitled "future of operations in benghazi, libya"? are you familiar with that memo and if so did secretary feltman discuss that with you at the time and discuss extending the mission in benghazi in democrats of '11? >> i'm familiar that there was an ongoing discussion about the future of the mission in benghazi -- >> a discussion between whom, ma'am? >> between all of the relevant officials in the state department. >> help me with understanding -- >> jeff feltman was one of them. >> who else? >> chris stevens was one of them. but there were many others who had information and expertise to add to it. and there was a recommendation that benghazi

stevens into benghazi? ms. clinton: i was personally told by the officials who were in the state department who were chris, who above were making the plans for him to go in, that it was going to the expeditionary diplomacy. it was going to require him to make a lot of judgments on the ground about what he could accomplish and including where it would be safer him to be, and how long for him to say. i think the initial decision was up to 30 days and reassess, but it could have been 10 days or 60 days, depending on what he found and reported back to us. >> who were those officials? ms. clinton: there were a number of officials. >> that were advising you on the security specifically. ms. clinton: this was a particular concern of the assistant secretary for the bureau in which chris ware. >> i'm sorry, what was that person's name? ms. clinton: assistant secretary the assistantand secretary for a diplomatic security and other officials within the state department. i think it is fair to say, this was a risky undertak

we should not leave benghazi. and it's -- you know, obviously something that you have to be constantly evaluating. and all of these difficult, unstable spots around the world. but i appreciate your bringing to the committee's attention the strong opinion of the man who knew the most and was on the ground and who understood what we were trying to achieve in benghazi, ambassador stevens. >> was it your understanding that he certainly understood the risk of being there? >> he definitely understood the risks, yes. >> thank you. i yield back. >> gentlelady xwreelds back. the chair will recognize the gentlelady, ms. brooks. >> i would like to ask you about your decision-making and the discussions you had as it related to how long the benghazi position would last. i'm putting up a map just because most of us really don't know much about libya, don't know much about the geography of libya. and as we've talked about these various communities, i don't think most people really realized. so i want to share with you that we kn

benghazi more terrorist attack than a protest. we want to distinguish, distinguish not to inflate t theevthe events and this was a well planned attack and the experts on libya know this was a well planned attack but publically jay carney is saying what you are saying publically we have no information this was preplanned, this was caused by a video. >> congressman, the next morning at 9:59 i gave another statement and i listened carefully to what you said and you kept talking about cause. well the word cause is not in my statement of the night before. >> i'm referring to what you said to me in our first exchange a few hours ago. >> no, well i'm sorry congressman if i have not been clear i will try to be clearer. i was talking about people throughout the region trying to justify attacks on our facilities as we saw later in the week and justifying their behavior and repeating it and using the fact of the video not only to arose crowds as we saw in the video clips that the ranking member played but also that would deter governments fr

and you have a lot to lose if benghazi unraveled. if libya unraveled you have a lot to lose based on the victory lap, based on the sunday shows and based on the favorable accolades that were coming. if it went the wrong direction it would be on you and if it was stable and the right direction you were the beneficiary of that. so the question is how is it possible that these urgent requests that came in, how did they not breakthrough the very upper levels of your inner circle, people hugh are here today and people who served you. [inaudible question] of those requests from two ambassadors ambassador chris and ambassador steven said came in on june 7, july 19, august 2 and march 28 august of 2012 how is it possible that those the student breakthrough? you told us that wasn't your job basically. he said i'm not responsible but here's my theory. i think this is what was going on. to admit a need for more security was to admit that there was a deteriorating situation and to admit the deteriorating situation didn't figure narrative of a su

benghazi. >> absolutely. 787 are about benghazi. >> congresswoman, look, i appreciate and i really do, the passion and the intensity of your feelings about this. we have diplomatic facilities in war zones. we have ambassadors that we send to places that have been bombed and attacked all the time. >> and you are their boss. >> you are right i am. >> you are their leader; is that correct? and are there ever situations where you call them? where you bring them in? where you are personally caring and concerned and are letting them know that? are there situations where you recall and i would like to know what the conversation was with ambassador stevens and what month it was with ambassador stevens because there are no call logs with him. there is nothing from the op. center with him that we have found. we have no record that you had any conversations with the ambassador after you swore him in. and before he died. and you were his boss. >> i was the boss of ambassadors in 270 countries. i was the bo

from your staff about benghazi and chris stevens. when i look at this pile in 2012, i only see a handful of emails to you from your senior staff about benghazi. >> clinton acknowledged stevens didn't have her personal email address. but lawmakers have her friend sidney blumenthal's electronic messages. that led to sparks flying between the chairman and the panel's top democrat. >> why is it you only want mr. blumenthal's transcript released. >> i would like to have them all released. >> the survivors, their names? you want those released. >> it is noteworthy that blumenthal's emails got her attention, yet security requests from her ambassador in libya, she says did not reach her desk. brett? >> mike emmanuel live on the hill. let's get more details from hillary clinton's testimony before the house select committee on benghazi and some apparent contradictions, chief intelligence correspondent catherine herridge is here. mrs. clinton said today will was never a recommendation to leave benghazi. >> well that's right, brett, mrs. clinton

about benghazi. it is, and i quote, why are people in libya and thank god the make so many requests for additional security and why are those requests denied? i'm giving you a chance to answer in a minute. secretary clinton, as you know, this exact question has been asked and answered many times. let's start with the accountability review board. you, a moment ago, you talked about the admiral. you also pointed another great estate wished gentlemen, admiral mullen served under republican administrations and ambassador pickering, who i have a great amount of respect for, served 40 years, as you know, on our diplomatic corps, he served under george h. w. bush. he also served as un ambassador under, he also served under reagan. i was just wondering, i may go back to that question. why are people in libya and benghazi making so many requests? i want you to comment. there seems to be an implementation, not independent. i think that the chairman said they were handpicked by you. that is done by law. would y

presence in benghazi. and republicans asked more than 45 questions about david brock, media matters, i have no idea what that is even, and affiliated entities, but no questions -- no questions -- about ambassador stevens and other u.s. personnel in benghazi. that's sidney blumenthal by the numbers. now, there were a couple lines of questioning that i did understand. one of them was about the accountability review board report. now, not the one that's actually relevant to today about benghazi, but the one that was written 17 years ago about a different attack in tanzania. there was a very nice chart. they've got great exhibits. selectively quoting from that report. and the implication was the secretary should have security, should be the one deciding the security at every facility around the world. what he didn't read to you was part of the same section of that report, which says, quote, in the process the secretary should re-examine the present organizational structure with the objective of assuring that a

if you were investigating benghazi or what happened in benghazi and there was an offer of an e-mail three months to the day, three months to the day from when our four fellow americans were killed, the author of the e-mail says "anti-american demonstration, looking for americans to attack, game changer, soft target, no continuity, the cost to continue to do business there may become challenging." would you want to talk to the author of that e-mail if you were investigating benghazi? >> the accountability review board had full run of the state department to talk to anyone they chose to talk to. it's my understanding they conducted more than 100 interviews, and they were well aware, as their report reflects, of the dangerous situation in libya. >> i don't want to interrupt you. that actually was not my question. my question is, would you want to talk to that person? not whether or not the arb did, because the arb actually did talk to that person. my question is, wouldn't you want to talk to that person if you were investigating benghazi? >> well -- >> i promise it is not a trick question. t

>> no, and there's an example out of benghazi attack. there was a preexisting understanding between the diplomatic compound and the cia an ex. and there was no need for anybody at the compound to call washington to alert the cia an n ex. they strang into action to spring to the system for our compound. so we're trying to have more preexisting arrangements like that, and that goes to your question. if there are assets in the region, how do we plan for king contingencies so they can be immediately trying to respond. i spoke to the white house, and i spoke to lots of other people to try to get whatever help we could get. we did get a surveillance plane above the location, but it took some time to get there, it had to be diverted. >> it was an unarmed drone, correct? >> yes, it was an unarmed uav, right. we asked for everything we could get, and everybody immediately tried to provide it. but i think now there's more awareness that maybe we should be doing these scenarios ahead of time to try to figure out what could be done without having to

. >> and try to save the people of benghazi. it wasn't just barack obama and hillary clinton. it was john mccain and lindsey graham. >> and france and uk. >> and europeans. allies in europe and many arab allies. it may have been a bad policy, but don't fool yoouurself that' not what this is about in the least. >> secretary clinton started talking about smart power and the use of power, but i think one of the things we haven't heard enough about okay, once you achieve your objective what then? what do you do in libya after gadhafi's been deposed or in iraq or syria or wherever? >> she also talked about her belief that the job of diplomats is not exclusively to sit behind a desk in an embassy. it's to go out in the countries that they represent. >> she invoked 19th century diplomats. >> few things about hillary clinton's foreign policy vision because of this hearing talked about willingness to put diplomats in dangerous situations, called it expedition diplomacy. she thinks success in libya was example of smart power and beneficia

consulate in benghazi. her statements which msnbc posted at 10:32 made reference to the video on september 12 obama labels acts as terrorism. and then also on september 12, clinton delivered a speech at the state department to condemn the attack and to praise the victims as heroes. she, again, references the anti-muslim video in similar language. so that from the time line. it is not until about september 16 when somebody from the administration talks about this not being a video but an act of terrorism. we're told hillary clinton should be arriving at anytime. annette in chicago heights, illinois, republican, what do you think, annette? what's on your mind this morning? >> caller: what's on my mind is confusion. i'm not sure because i voted at different times and i'm not sure where i'm going to head, you know, it at this point. for some reason it seems like the media hypes up the situation about hillary clinton more so, the bad things. she seems to me like the most credible presidential candidate in this e

. >> guest: the ranking member of the benghazi benghazi committee as you know and currently the ranking member of the house oversight committee and he's been there for a while. he is there right now and he was previously there went there'll issa was the chairman said so he's had a fairly long experience being minority democrats on the committee that is going after them probing the obama administration. he has had to kind of have a set back stiff upper lip and has been somewhat of a fighter and theirs is bear mountain speculation that he may end up running for the senate in maryland. he says it's not making any firm commitments so after this hearing was secretary clinton but recent polling said that he wanted to do that option would be there for him and he could jump into the fray and would probably do well in the open senate seat in maryland after senator mikulski steps down the end of next year. so he is a high-profile and certainly gained a lot of recognition because of this committee and might take that to the upper chamber. >> host: we have adam schiff, linda sanchez tammy duckworth

andi lammist who are in benghazi. that is the state of benghazi today. a city of hundreds of thousands of people. trash on the streets and no functioning government. no school for children and islamist running different neighborhoods. what is the impact of that? >> well, that is also an issue of policy here in washington and also in europe. the libyans in general sent signals as did egyptians that they don't want to beÑi ruled b thei lammist. and our society is not supporting. they are saying you have to live together under one government and we have partnered with them. it is nonarmed and islamist are shooting against them. >> why did city of benghazi matter three years ago, and why does benghazi matter today? >> because everything between benghazi as a city and the east of libya has been historically and basis for the jihaddist and islamist. that out of that area, all of the flow of weapons went in the early stages of the syrian revolution. and who ever sent them to syria inflamed the situation there and led to isis. and so it is an important stage in

traders turning their backs to benghazi. we've got to call it like we see it, a very busy day on wall street and the bulls are on the run. the volume of trade around 18% higher than normal. we're less than an hour to the closing bell so let's start the "countdown." . liz: the breaking news is that what was supposed to be a skewering of hillary clinton over involvement in not sending enough security to the u.s. consulate in benghazi turned into a disjointed hearing that has gone off on tangents more than once. it is going on and on, and we're going to dip back in and out as we see it fit, but first to get you up to speed here are some of the most important moments so far -- >> there are people frankly in both parties who have suggested that this investigation is about you. this investigation is about four people who were killed representing our country on foreign soil. >> after your plan, things in libya today are a disaster. >> that's not a view they will abscribe to. >> americans can live with the fact that good people some

but no protesters spotted in neighboring benghazi. then 4:00 p.m. eastern benghazi. the first wave of attacks begin on the u.s. compound. two hours into that attack the state department send an email to the white house saying ansar al-sharia just claimed credit for the attack on benghazi. still later that night secretary of state clinton issues a statement saying the -- the assault was in response to an anti-muslim movie. the administration blamed the attacks on the movie. but they also say there were spontaneous protests going on that day in the streets. >> no act of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great station, alter that character or eclipse the light of the values we and for. >> some have thought to justify this vicious behavior along with the protest that took place in our embassy in cairo as a response to inflammatory material posted on the internet. >> we have seen range posted about our embassy over an internet video we had nothing to do with. >> we were not aware of intelligence indicating an attack on the embassy was planned or imminent. >> this

benghazi. the former secretary of state will answer questions about the september 11, 2012 attacks on the u.s. consulate that killed four americans, including ambassador chris stevens. a new "full measure" report asked 1000 likely voters, has hillary clinton been honest in her disclosures of testimony related to benghazi? 27% said yes. 52% said no. 22% were not surur over the past three years, a body of evidence has emerged, showing that eight weeks before president obama's reelection, the administration, including clinton, worked to steer the public narrative away from the terrorist nature of the attacks, security shortfalls, and the lack of a milita rescue. it is the night of september 11, 2012 and while the benghazi attacks are under way, top -- top officials at clinton's state department t know that an al qaeda-linked islamic extremist group has taken credit. within minutes, that alert goes to the white house, fbi, and pentagon. four hours later, clinton's public statement invokes the idea

because you had a loss of life in benghazi. you had a failure in policy in benghazi. there are significant questions about safety and the protocols and the accountability to them. all valid. now, you could say that they've already been vetted in this situation and that this is motivated by something else, what's happening today. that's why you have to watch. that's why we have to cover it with a lot of heavy scrutiny on both sides. that's what we're going to do this morning. we'll have one of the main members of the select committee on and we'll go through it step by step, what got us to this point, where they hope to go today and what it might mean. and you'll be able to watch also. also, we have new video of a really terrible incident but it's important to show you, because it shows the moment in crisis for a law enforcement officer in the course of the job, what he dealt with, what he was forced to survive and he is certainly a hero and he is on the show with us today. and it is a real window into the life of police officers but really, you can't overhype the signi

dougherty. >> what about the benghazi thing? >> the issue has been kept alive not just by republicans in congress, but also conservative talk radio. >> what questions do you think remain unanswered? >> the number one thing, i haven't heard anybody really say this is where the breakdown was. >> he argues it's embarrassing that after all the investigations, there are still, in his view, big gaps in the benghazi narrative. >> from start to finish, there are holes in the government's story. we don't know where hillary clinton was that night, where president obama was that night. we don't know why the requests for additional security were repeatedly denied from the ambassador coming out of libya. >> one of three former prosecutors on the panel said none of the previous investigators had access to clinton's emails or those from ambassador stevens. a full day has been set for hillary clinton's testimony so that all the members have a chance to ask whatever questions they feel are still unanswered. al jazeera, washington. >> journalist

>> for everyone or for benghazi? >> i'm sorry, for benghazi and libya. do you know how many? >> no, i do not know. >> just over 100 plus. in the second quarter do you know how many? >> no, i do not. >> might have been 171 or 173. how many were there in july and august and then in the week and a few days before the attacks, do you know? >> there were a number of them. i know that. >> yes, ma'am, 83 by our count. that's over 600 requests. you have testified here this morning that you had none of those reach your desk, is that correct? >> that's correct. >> madam secretary, mr. blumenthal wrote you 150 e-mails. it appears from the materials that we have read that all of those reached your desk. can you tell us why security requests from your professionals, the men that you just testified and with which i agree are incredibly professional, incredibly capable people, trained in the art of keeping us all safe, none of those made it to you? but a man who was a friend of yours who had never been to libya, didn't know much about it, at least that's his testimony, didn't know much abou

and granted he never said shut down benghazi. and i understand and appreciate that you deferred to him but you also -- we have no record of you ever talking to him. that you never talked to him personally after may of 2012 when you swore him in as our ambassador. am i wrong? did you ever talk to ambassador stevens when all of this was going on in the hot bed of libya? that is a yes or no question, madame secretary? did you ever personally speak to ambassador stevens? we don't know the answer. did you ever personally speak to him after you swore him in in may? yes or no. >> yes, i believe i did. >> when was that? >> i don't recall and i want to clarify for the record that this document is about all of libya and not just benghazi. >> 77 are about benghazi. >> congress woman, i appreciate and i really do, the passion and the intensity of your feelings about this. we have diplomatic facilities in war zones. we have ambassadors that we send to places that have been bombed and attacked all the time. >> and you're their boss. is that ri

this benghazi. >> and i think what we have learned here is well nothing frankly. we didn't know already. the security situation in libya was dangerous. >> right. >> without question. would you say that ambassador stevens was unaware of any aspect of that? >> no, i would not. i think he was very aware. >> so he knew the security situation in libya quite well? >> that's right. >> and yet and again i want to be clear on this in his communications with you and you had many even if he didn't have your e-mail address, did he ever say, you know, did he raise the security issue directly with you? >> no, he did not. >> and the same question and obviously he chose to go to benghazi, he as you have described earlier as gosh all across the world today diplomates are weighing the risks and benefits in a lot of dangerous places and he had to do that and he chose to go to benghazi. >> he did and congressman ambassadors in the countries they are representing the united states and do not as a practice ask permission from the state department to travel in the country where they are

our next guest is wondering why we were in benghazi in the first place? did the committee get that answer and is that significant. that is after the break. i was out for a bike ride. i didn't think i'd have a heart attack. but i did. i'm mike, and i'm very much alive. now my doctor recommends a bayer aspirin regimen to help prevent another heart attack. be sure to talk to your doctor before you begin an aspirin regimen. >> you sent them to your family and this is what you said. 11:00 that night. approximately one hour after you told the american people about the video. two were killed in benghazi by an al-qaeda- like group you tell the american people one thing and tell your family a different story. on the night of the attack, you had a call with the president of libya and you said to him. an sarshar ian is claiming responsibility. one of the guys in charge belonged to that group. and timely, the next day in 24 hours you had a rfrgz conversation with the egyptian prime minister. we know the attack in libya had nothing to do with the film. it is a planned

diplomatic compound in benghazi, libya. they drilled into her actions on the night of the attack on that compound, the attack in 2012, an attack that killed u.s. ambassador chris stevens, foreign service officer sean smith and cia contractors

her previous benghazi testimony. do you remember, she was wearing those prismatic glasses because she'd had a concussion, that made everybody worry about her health. well, tonight i think we know, we can put any health concerns aside. what a remarkable display of endurance. secretary clinton, i don't know offhand how old she is. i think she's probably 25 years older than i am. i'm exhausted from having watched her testify for this long today, let alone imagining the prospect of sitting there for 11 hours, taking this kind of a beating. former secretary of state hillary clinton has just wrapped up more than 11 hours of testimony before the house select committee investigating the attacks on the u.s. diplomatic facility in benghazi in 2012. this testimony began at 10:00 a.m. eastern time this morning, which seems like a lifetime ago, and for some insects it is. this thing has stretched all the way from 10:00 a.m. this morning all the way through the day into the late hours of tonight. secretary clinton still in the roo

benghazi, no. if you believe that hillary clinton was not held accountable enough for what happened that day i think yesterday kind of reinforced some of those narratives. also as to her lack of judgment and lack of trust worthiness. i think all of that came out yesterday if you were inclined to sort of already think that about her. >> yeah people have said that. it cemented their views perhaps. might not have changed some. >>> donald trump gearing up for his hosting duties on saturday night live but the appearance is coming under fire. we will ask an hispanic member of congress what he thinks about donald trump's appearance. >>> the benghazi hearing has been criticized by many democrats as the partisan investigation meant to sink hillary clinton's presidential campaign. let's dig into those claims. congressman, thank you for being was. i imagine you think that the secretary did well yesterday. i imagine you think that the panel in and of itself is partisan. so let me ask this a different way. do y