Trey Gowdy Gives TROUBLING Answers on Benghazi in Interview

Not sure how we missed this but it is a potentially disturbing development for those relying on Rep. Trey Gowdy and his House Select Committee to get to the bottom of what happened in Benghazi. After the committee’s second hearing on December 10th, Gowdy appeared on Greta van Susteren’s On The Record to discuss what happened in the hearing and where the investigation stands.

The interview starts out well enough, with Gowdy explaining that the next hearing is in January and that a major focus of that hearing will be to determine why there was a U.S. presence in Benghazi at all.

Gowdy meeting with Benghazi Select Committee Executive Director Philip Kiko at first hearing.

Gowdy meeting with Benghazi Select Committee Executive Director Philip Kiko at first hearing.

Then Greta asked Gowdy about why he thought Ambassador Chris Stevens was in Benghazi the night he was murdered and what his meeting with Turkish Consul General Ali Akin one hour prior to the attacks commencing was all about.

When asked for his thoughts on the reason for Stevens’ meeting with Akin, Gowdy responded:

“I’ve seen no evidence that the meeting with the Turkish diplomat was in any way related to, well, what ultimately happened to the Ambassador.”

When then asked if the meeting had anything to do with the CIA / State Department presence in Benghazi, Gowdy said:

“If there is any evidence to connect the two, I have not seen it and no one on HPSCI (House Intelligence Committee) has told me about it.”

That part in bold is a bombshell and not in a good way for at least one very simple reason. As the Chairman of the Select Committee, Gowdy has access to everything, including intelligence committee information. As Shoebat.com has pointed out, House Intelligence Committee chairman Mike Rogers (R-MI) has admitted publicly that Stevens met with his committee in the days prior to his murder.

Has Gowdy attempted to learn what was discussed in that meeting? If not, why not? If he was rebuffed why has he not interviewed or deposed Rogers by now? The committee was named last May.

At that point, Gowdy may have tipped his hand about being more interested in why the U.S. was in Benghazi than why Stevens was there on the anniversary of 9/11. In a clear effort to tamp down concerns about why Stevens was in Benghazi, Gowdy said:

“We may ultimately find out that there is no more nefarious explanation other than the fact that our ambassador loved the people of Benghazi.”

Again, Rep. Gowdy, have you asked Chairman Rogers what was discussed in his meeting with Stevens?

Perhaps most disturbing is Gowdy’s speculation – as his committee is still investigating – about why Stevens and Akin were meeting:

“I honestly think at the end of that analysis we’re going to find that he and the Turkish Diplomat were friends.”

Really? So Ambassador Stevens flew to a woefully unprotected facility to spend the 9/11 anniversary in an area teaming with Islamic terrorists and meet with his Turkish buddy who represents a government that supports terrorism? Besides, why would Gowdy make such an assertion before the investigation is over?

Or is it already over?

Here is Rogers in November of 2013 admitting that Stevens met with his committee in the days before his murder:

As Shoebat.com has reported at length in the past, one of the reasons to be concerned about this committee from the very beginning was the decision to appoint Philip Kiko as Executive Director.

While Gowdy is an excellent federal prosecutor who has appeared untouchable, we suspected that relying on him to overcome the many forces at work allayed against him – from both parties – would be a very tall mountain for him to climb. The comments he made to Greta seem to reinforce that.

Giving Gowdy the benefit of the doubt would require an assumption that he is playing this all close to the vest until such time as he can lower the boom before anyone knows what happened.

Indications are that may be a bit too optimistic.

print

, , , ,

  • Pingback: Benghazi: Trey Gowdy Succumbs to “The Obama Version” | theflyingcameldotorg()

  • Marco Vincent

    Bengazhi…the biggest FUBAR in the history of American intelligence.

    • Julie LaBrecque

      SNAFU

  • richinnameonly

    Sounds like Gowdy is being about as “piercing” and “revealing” as Bill O’Reilly.

  • 1Bobby8

    What do they have on Trey Gowdy? I guess no one if they dig deep enough, is “squeaky clean.”

  • royal

    They have gotten to him,

  • Julie

    Agree…have impression the Obama crowd is working to blackmail him…just like I suspect Hillary and Bill Clinton were in stepping back in the past presidential campaign.

    who is to say we will be rid of this regime after 2016??

  • Julie LaBrecque

    What an idiotic thing to say. Your beloved leaders refused to send forces to help 4 Americans. THAT is the scandal, why don’t you ask: WHY?

  • Barrack

    Make a deal with you, King of Beers…

    Do you agree that Republican Gowdy should depose Republican Mike Rogers about what Rogers and Stevens discussed days prior to Stevens’ death?

    Will you then hold off on your opinion that there is no scandal until we find out what was discussed?

  • Barrack

    You very well may be right. Even if you are, with Congress, it’s always better to be on your toes than on your heels. The last time any administration paid a real price was Nixon’s. Are we to believe there have been no scandals to reach to that level since?

    That’s laughable. There have been more than a dozen that exceed that level since.

    Blind trust in any member of Congress is a mistake, even Gowdy. Besides, if he is who so many think he is, he should welcome the skepticism.

  • Barrack

    Do you know what a non-sequitir is, KOB? You should. You just used one.

    With all that this government wastes our money on, you’re worried about $14 Million? You’re clueless about what a pittance that is compared to government fraud across the board.

    I’ll pay back $14 million when Obama pays ME back my portion of the $787 Billion stimulus.

    So as I argue for a bi-partisan investigation, you defend the Republican Rogers by changing the subject?

    That’s Rich.

  • Barrack

    And it doesn’t bother you that BOTH sides are covering up?!

    Dude, wake up.

    As for evidence, you simply have ignored it, just like Republican AND Democrat members of Congress have.