In a court of law, once a witness’s testimony is discredited, the witness is no longer credible, even in instances when he or she might be telling the truth. Thanks to testimony from a witness to the Benghazi attack, the Accountability Review Board (ARB) should suffer a similar fate.

Pickering and Mullen’s ARB is Discredited.

A report filed by Catherine Herridge of Fox News is being introduced as EXHIBIT AL into our “Ironclad” Report. This Exhibit comports with EXHIBIT Y. The intent of Exhibit AL is to call further into question, the testimony of Accountability Review Board (ARB) chairman Thomas Pickering (EXHIBIT AE)

Here is an excerpt from Exhibit AL (Herridge’s report):

The terrorists who attacked the Benghazi consulate last year knew the location of the safe room where Ambassador Chris Stevens and his security team sought shelter, according to a congressman who spoke for 90 minutes with the diplomatic security agent severely injured in the assault.

“He confirmed this – that it was a very well orchestrated, and well organized, almost a military operation, using military weapons and using military signals,” the late Florida Rep. Bill Young said after meeting diplomatic security agent David Ubben at Walter Reed Medical Center last summer, when both were patients there.

After Young’s death in mid-October, his widow, Beverly Young, gave Fox permission to use her husband’s comments about the Sep. 11, 2012 terrorist attack on the record. The congressman had originally spoken to Fox on background last summer.

“He (Ubben) emphasized the fact that it was a very, very military type of operation they had knowledge of almost everything in the compound,” Young explained. “They knew where the gasoline was, they knew where the generators were, they knew where the safe room was, they knew more than they should have about that compound.” {emphasis ours}

Young: Comments revealed after his death a torpedo to ARB’s credibility.

Again, that account comports almost exactly with Exhibit Y, which is an excerpt from Special Report with Bret Baier. In that report, Baier quotes excerpts from a book written about Benghazi that relied on the firsthand accounts of witnesses. One of those quotes from a witness reads as follows:

“…one thing was absolutely certain… the U.S. Ambassador, the personal representative of President Barack Obama, was the ultimate target of the attack. They knew that they had to secure him and get him out of the kill zone.” {emphasis ours}

This leads us to Exhibit AE, which is a portion of an exchange between ARB Chairman Pickering and House Oversight Committee member, Rep. Cynthia Lummis (R-WY). Take note of what Pickering says at the 1:07 mark in response to a question about whether the Benghazi attack may have been about a kidnapping operation gone wrong:

“Kidnapping to me seemed to be far-fetched because… in the testimony that was given… they did not make a serious attempt to go in to the closed area of the villa. It is not even sure, in my view, they knew the ambassador was there.”

Watch the video:

It is our view that Exhibit Y and Exhibit AL – when taken together – should discredit the testimony of Mr. Pickering found in Exhibit AE.

Consider…

EXHIBIT Y: A firsthand account charges that Ambassador Stevens was “the ultimate target of the attack”.

EXHIBIT AL: In addition to fully corroborating the aforementioned quote from Exhibit Y, a firsthand account of the attack, relayed through a now-deceased U.S. Congressman, alleges that the attackers knew where the safe room was.

When taken together, wouldn’t one be able to logically conclude that Stevens went to the safe room – which he did – and that the attackers not only knew where the safe room was but wanted to get to it because… the “ultimate target” was there?

This takes us back to Pickering’s testimony which, in light of these developments, was extremely lawyerly but still misleading. Here is the key quote:

“It is not even sure, in my view, they knew the ambassador was there.”

Did you catch what Pickering didn’t say? He didn’t say the attackers didn’t know where the safe room was, only that he thought they didn’t know Stevens was inside it.

Again, this does not at all comport with Exhibits Y and AE, which are based on firsthand accounts.

This would mean that Pickering’s testimony is at variance with the testimony of those who witnessed the attack.

Therefore, Pickering’s testimony and the entire ARB Report should be completely discredited.