dogma wrote:
A challenger appears:

.

 dogma wrote:
A challenger appears:

 whitedragon wrote:
The Final Benghazi Thread.....

Until the next one...

The Republican-led House Select Committee investigating Benghazi has selected its lead legal official: a retired three-star general who, most recently, served as the U.S. Army’s Judge Advocate General under President Obama. That’s according to sources with information regarding the appointment.

Lt. Gen. Dana Chipman, 55, attended West Point and received his law degree from Stanford Law School in 1986, according to public reports. He also holds a Master of Science degree in Strategic Studies. He will serve as Chief Counsel of the Select Committee.

Chipman retired from the military last year after 33 years of service. His retirement ceremony was hosted by Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey, whose actions have come under scrutiny as part of the Congressional investigation into the limited military response to the Benghazi terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2012.

In a 2010 interview, Chipman stated that the last books he’d recently read included: The Unforgiving Minute, by Craig Mullaney, and Talent is Overrated, by Geoff Colvin. He also stated that he spent 33 months as a criminal prosecutor and “loved ‘crime’ – how/why people do what they do is fascinating!” His awards include the Legion of Merit and Bronze Star Medal.

The Benghazi Select Committee, chaired by Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) has already begun some work behind the scenes and is expected to ramp up fully when Congress returns from its summer vacation in September.

 sebster wrote:

 dogma wrote:
A challenger appears:

His hair actually looks better than it usually does there. Still terrible of course, but nowhere near as terrible as it generally does.

The Benghazi Select Committee, chaired by Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) has already begun some work behind the scenes and is expected to ramp up fully when Congress returns from its summer vacation in September.

 whembly wrote:

Good idea to have a retired serviceman to be the lead counsel. Probably because you'd need someone with security clearance.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Good idea to have a retired serviceman to be the lead counsel. Probably because you'd need someone with security clearance.

Assuming he has security clearance, or the requisite level of security clearance. And, even then, the other members of the committee must be considered.

As the House Select Committee on Benghazi prepares for its first hearing this week, a former State Department diplomat is coming forward with a startling allegation: Hillary Clinton confidants were part of an operation to “separate” damaging documents before they were turned over to the Accountability Review Board investigating security lapses surrounding the Sept. 11, 2012, terrorist attacks on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya.

According to former Deputy Assistant Secretary Raymond Maxwell, the after-hours session took place over a weekend in a basement operations-type center at State Department headquarters in Washington, D.C. This is the first time Maxwell has publicly come forward with the story.

At the time, Maxwell was a leader in the State Department’s Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs (NEA), which was charged with collecting emails and documents relevant to the Benghazi probe.

“I was not invited to that after-hours endeavor, but I heard about it and decided to check it out on a Sunday afternoon,” says Maxwell.

He didn’t know it then, but Maxwell would ultimately become one of four State Department officials singled out for discipline—he says scapegoated—then later cleared for devastating security lapses leading up to the attacks. Four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens, were murdered during the Benghazi attacks.

“Basement Operation”

As the House Select Committee on Benghazi prepares for its first hearing this week, a former State Department diplomat is coming forward with a startling allegation: Hillary Clinton confidants were part of an operation to “separate” damaging documents before they were turned over to the Accountability Review Board investigating security lapses surrounding the Sept. 11, 2012, terrorist attacks on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya.

New Benghazi allegation puts spotlight on Hillary Clinton confidants, alleged after-hours document review.

According to former Deputy Assistant Secretary Raymond Maxwell, the after-hours session took place over a weekend in a basement operations-type center at State Department headquarters in Washington, D.C. This is the first time Maxwell has publicly come forward with the story.

At the time, Maxwell was a leader in the State Department’s Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs (NEA), which was charged with collecting emails and documents relevant to the Benghazi probe.

Ray Maxwell (Photo: Sharyl Attkisson)
Raymond Maxwell, former State Dept. Deputy Assistant Secretary (Photo: Sharyl Attkisson)
“I was not invited to that after-hours endeavor, but I heard about it and decided to check it out on a Sunday afternoon,” says Maxwell.

He didn’t know it then, but Maxwell would ultimately become one of four State Department officials singled out for discipline—he says scapegoated—then later cleared for devastating security lapses leading up to the attacks. Four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens, were murdered during the Benghazi attacks.

“Basement Operation”

Maxwell says the weekend document session was held in the basement of the State Department’s Foggy Bottom headquarters in a room underneath the “jogger’s entrance.” He describes it as a large space, outfitted with computers and big screen monitors, intended for emergency planning, and with small offices on the periphery.

When he arrived, Maxwell says he observed boxes and stacks of documents. He says a State Department office director, whom Maxwell described as close to Clinton’s top advisers, was there. Though the office director technically worked for him, Maxwell says he wasn’t consulted about her weekend assignment.

“She told me, ‘Ray, we are to go through these stacks and pull out anything that might put anybody in the [Near Eastern Affairs] front office or the seventh floor in a bad light,’” says Maxwell. He says “seventh floor” was State Department shorthand for then-Secretary of State Clinton and her principal advisors.

“I asked her, ‘But isn’t that unethical?’ She responded, ‘Ray, those are our orders.’ ”

A few minutes after he arrived, Maxwell says in walked two high-ranking State Department officials.

Maxwell says the two officials, close confidants of Clinton, appeared to check in on the operation and soon left.

Maxwell says after those two officials arrived, he, the office director and an intern moved into a small office where they looked through some papers. Maxwell says his stack included pre-attack telegrams and cables between the U.S. embassy in Tripoli and State Department headquarters. After a short time, Maxwell says he decided to leave.

“I didn’t feel good about it,” he said.

We reached out to Clinton, who declined an interview request and offered no comment. A State Department spokesman told us it would have been impossible for anybody outside the Accountability Review Board (ARB) to control the flow of information because the board cultivated so many sources.

“Unfettered access”?

When the ARB issued its call for documents in early October 2012, the executive directorate of the State Department’s Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs was put in charge of collecting all emails and relevant material. It was gathered, boxed and—Maxwell says—ended up in the basement room prior to being turned over.

In May 2013, when critics questioned the ARB’s investigation as not thorough enough, co-chairmen Ambassador Thomas Pickering and Adm. Mike Mullen stated, “we had unfettered access to everyone and everything including all the documentation we needed.”

Maxwell says when he heard that statement, he couldn’t help but wonder if the ARB—perhaps unknowingly—had received from his bureau a scrubbed set of documents with the most damaging material missing.

Maxwell also criticizes the ARB as “anything but independent,” pointing to Mullen’s admission in congressional testimony that he called Clinton chief of staff Cheryl Mills to give her inside advice after the ARB interviewed a potential congressional witness.

In an interview in September 2013, Pickering told me that he would not have done what Mullen did. But both co-chairmen strongly defend their probe as “fiercely independent.”

Maxwell also criticizes the ARB for failing to interview key people at the White House, State Department and the CIA, including Secretary Clinton; Deputy Secretary of State Thomas Nides, who managed department resources in Libya; Assistant Secretary of State for Political Military Affairs Andrew Shapiro; and White House National Security Council Director for Libya Ben Fishman.

“The ARB inquiry was, at best, a shoddily executed attempt at damage control, both in Foggy Bottom and on Capitol Hill,” says Maxwell. He views the after-hours operation he witnessed in the State Department basement as “an exercise in misdirection.”

State Department Response

A State Department spokesman calls the implication that documents were withheld “totally without merit.” Spokesman Alec Gerlach says “The range of sources that the ARB’s investigation drew on would have made it impossible for anyone outside of the ARB to control its access to information.”

Gerlach says the State Department instructed all employees to cooperate “fully and promptly” with the ARB, which invited anyone with relevant information to contact them directly.

“So individuals with information were reaching out proactively to the board. And, the ARB was also directly engaged with individuals and the [State] Department’s bureaus and offices to request information and pull on whichever threads it chose to,” says Gerlach.

Benghazi Select Committee

Maxwell says he has been privately interviewed by several members of Congress in recent months, including Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., chairman of the House Select Committee on Benghazi, and Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, a member of the House Oversight Committee.

When reached for comment, Chaffetz told me that Maxwell’s allegations “go to the heart of the integrity of the State Department.”

“The allegations are as serious as it gets, and it’s something we have obviously followed up and pursued,” Chaffetz says. “I’m 100 percent confident the Benghazi Select Committee is going to dive deep on that issue.”

Former Obama Supporter

Maxwell, 58, strongly supported Barack Obama and personally contributed to his presidential campaign. But post-Benghazi, he has soured on both Obama and Clinton, saying he had nothing to do with security and was sacrificed as a scapegoat while higher-up officials directly responsible escaped discipline. He spent a year on paid administrative leave with no official charge ever levied. Ultimately, the State Department cleared Maxwell of wrongdoing and reinstated him. He retired a short time later in November 2013.

Maxwell worked in foreign service for 21 years as the well-respected deputy assistant secretary for Maghreb Affairs in the Near East Bureau and former chief of staff to the ambassador in Baghdad. Fluent in Portuguese, Maxwell is also an ex-Navy “mustanger,” which means he successfully made the leap from enlisted ranks to commissioned officer.

He’s also a prolific poet. While on administrative leave, he published poems online: allegories hinting at his post-Benghazi observations and experiences.

A poem entitled “Invitation,” refers to Maxwell’s placement on administrative leave in December 2012: “The Queen’s Henchmen / request the pleasure of your company / at a Lynching – / to be held / at 23rd and C Streets NW [State Dept. building] / on Tuesday, December 18, 2012 / just past sunset. / Dress: Formal, Masks and Hoods- / the four being lynched / must never know the identities/ of their executioners, or what/ whose sin required their sacrifice./ A blood sacrifice- / to divert the hounds- / to appease the gods- / to cleanse our filth and /satisfy our guilty consciences…”

In another poem called “Trapped in a purgatory of their own deceit,” Maxwell wrote: “The web of lies they weave / gets tighter and tighter / in its deceit / until it bottoms out – / at a very low frequency – / and implodes…Yet all the while, / the more they talk, / the more they lie, / and the deeper down the hole they go… Just wait…/ just wait and feed them the rope.”

Several weeks after he was placed on leave with no formal accusations, Maxwell made an appointment to address his status with a State Department ombudsman.

“She told me, ‘You are taking this all too personally, Raymond. It is not about you,’” Maxwell says.

“I told her that ‘My name is on TV and I’m on administrative leave, it seems like it’s about me.’ Then she said, ‘You’re not harmed, you’re still getting paid. Don’t watch TV. Take your wife on a cruise. It’s not about you; it’s about Hillary and 2016.”

Since Maxwell retired from the State Department, he has obtained a master’s degree in library information science.

 motyak wrote:
That 'writer' really loves hitting that word basement, as if saying it automatically makes people think of illegal dealings underground that they want hidden from people, rather than just another floor of a building. Because if it had been on the 2nd floor, in the light of day, then all of this 'super sketchy stuff' wouldn't have happened.

 whembly wrote:

 motyak wrote:
That 'writer' really loves hitting that word basement, as if saying it automatically makes people think of illegal dealings underground that they want hidden from people, rather than just another floor of a building. Because if it had been on the 2nd floor, in the light of day, then all of this 'super sketchy stuff' wouldn't have happened.

Illegal? Probably not since the ARB was a States Department creature and depositions weren't under oath...

Sketchy? You betcha.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
To my American brothers: please, just let it go. In ten years time, you'll still be arguing about Benghazi.

 motyak wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 motyak wrote:
That 'writer' really loves hitting that word basement, as if saying it automatically makes people think of illegal dealings underground that they want hidden from people, rather than just another floor of a building. Because if it had been on the 2nd floor, in the light of day, then all of this 'super sketchy stuff' wouldn't have happened.

Illegal? Probably not since the ARB was a States Department creature and depositions weren't under oath...

Sketchy? You betcha.

Probably the best quality reporting about Benghazi around? Probably

Is this an embarrassing reflection upon those who continue to chase this non-story? You betcha

Just re-read that, I'm not saying you are chasing this story, but you just keep coughing up whatever those that are chasing it are churning out of their donkey caves.

 whembly wrote:

And, that's okay with me, because there were real fethups along the way and hopefully it becames a lesson for future leaders.

 motyak wrote:

 whembly wrote:

And, that's okay with me, because there were real fethups along the way and hopefully it becames a lesson for future leaders.

Wait, so they don't need to go to jail, because the fethup wasn't that bad, but they need to be embarrassed and hurt in the next election, and however many piles of taxpayer money wasted on these hearings, because the fethups were that bad? That's some interesting logic.

 whembly wrote:
O.o

Damn... sorry for that rated R word that bypassed the swear filters. Thanks for catching it.

 whembly wrote:

 motyak wrote:

 whembly wrote:

And, that's okay with me, because there were real fethups along the way and hopefully it becames a lesson for future leaders.

Wait, so they don't need to go to jail, because the fethup wasn't that bad, but they need to be embarrassed and hurt in the next election, and however many piles of taxpayer money wasted on these hearings, because the fethups were that bad? That's some interesting logic.

You're coming from a positions that everything we need to know about this event has been said and there's nothing more that needs to be said. Right?

Here's the kicker. We still don't exactly know what Obama did and when during what transpired.

We still don't know, specifically, why the consulate were poorly defended.

There's a lot of unknowns.

 Jihadin wrote:
Majority of paper records are kept in the basements of government building's

 motyak wrote:

I'm coming from the position where you said it wasn't a big enough deal for one thing to happen, but it is a big enough deal to waste thousands, and a lot of time which could be spent on better governance, which is the biggest problem I have with nothing issues like this. The amount of time they drain away from actual leadership and country-running is just disgusting. These people have a responsibility to govern, and while that involves beating the other side once every 2 years, it doesn't mean that's what your whole career needs to devolve into, as it has recently in US politics. Aus politics is heading there too, the amount of time wasted in parliament...nevermind. Off Topic.

I'm just saying, the amount of time and money wasted chasing what you seem to understand on some level to be relatively a non-story is just sickening.

 d-usa wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Majority of paper records are kept in the basements of government building's

Are you saying the majority of government activity is shady and questionable?

Nevermind, don't answer that

 whembly wrote:

 motyak wrote:

I'm coming from the position where you said it wasn't a big enough deal for one thing to happen, but it is a big enough deal to waste thousands, and a lot of time which could be spent on better governance, which is the biggest problem I have with nothing issues like this. The amount of time they drain away from actual leadership and country-running is just disgusting. These people have a responsibility to govern, and while that involves beating the other side once every 2 years, it doesn't mean that's what your whole career needs to devolve into, as it has recently in US politics. Aus politics is heading there too, the amount of time wasted in parliament...nevermind. Off Topic.

I'm just saying, the amount of time and money wasted chasing what you seem to understand on some level to be relatively a non-story is just sickening.

If no one is held to account or "a lesson" isn't made... then, nothing changes.

Honest question my straya friend... did you honestly believe that it was a spontaneous protest gone awry because of that anti-Islam YouTube video?

 motyak wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 motyak wrote:

I'm coming from the position where you said it wasn't a big enough deal for one thing to happen, but it is a big enough deal to waste thousands, and a lot of time which could be spent on better governance, which is the biggest problem I have with nothing issues like this. The amount of time they drain away from actual leadership and country-running is just disgusting. These people have a responsibility to govern, and while that involves beating the other side once every 2 years, it doesn't mean that's what your whole career needs to devolve into, as it has recently in US politics. Aus politics is heading there too, the amount of time wasted in parliament...nevermind. Off Topic.

I'm just saying, the amount of time and money wasted chasing what you seem to understand on some level to be relatively a non-story is just sickening.

If no one is held to account or "a lesson" isn't made... then, nothing changes.

Honest question my straya friend... did you honestly believe that it was a spontaneous protest gone awry because of that anti-Islam YouTube video?

1) *shudder* straya. It haunts us even from over there.

2) You can hold people accountable, make a lesson, without spending this much time and money on it. Make a note of it on the floor, you must have some kind of 'this is a formal shaming of X' procedure. Do that. Do that, make a media statement or two about it, but don't waste this much time and money on an attempt to make the other side look bad.

3) I don't think it was because of the video, but at this point it is irrelevant. If they wanted to make a lesson of someone, they've been dragging names through the mud for a good long while now. They've made their point, given their lesson, but they refuse. They need it to keep going into the election, and that's where it crosses the line from 'doing the public a service by keeping the people in power accountable' to 'neglecting their jobs in favour of keeping their jobs'. Governance of a county is probably the only place I can think of where that is a viable option, and that's a big problem in and of itself.

I'll pose a question back at you. Do you think this is the best way that these people who are chasing this story could have been serving their people? Because if you do, then we are at opposite ends of this argument.

 whembly wrote:
that's an interesting one for the filter to miss, motyak

 whembly wrote:

 motyak wrote:

1) *shudder* straya. It haunts us even from over there.

Oh? Sorry it's insulting... if it helps, I've been saying that with love. What's the desired nickname then?

 whembly wrote:

 motyak wrote:

2) You can hold people accountable, make a lesson, without spending this much time and money on it. Make a note of it on the floor, you must have some kind of 'this is a formal shaming of X' procedure. Do that. Do that, make a media statement or two about it, but don't waste this much time and money on an attempt to make the other side look bad.

There is no formal shaming method... unless it's the non-binding "vote of no confident".

*shrugs*

Again, let me rephrase, no one has been held accountable in any way shape or form. Not yet at least...

 whembly wrote:

 motyak wrote:

3) I don't think it was because of the video, but at this point it is irrelevant. If they wanted to make a lesson of someone, they've been dragging names through the mud for a good long while now. They've made their point, given their lesson, but they refuse. They need it to keep going into the election, and that's where it crosses the line from 'doing the public a service by keeping the people in power accountable' to 'neglecting their jobs in favour of keeping their jobs'. Governance of a county is probably the only place I can think of where that is a viable option, and that's a big problem in and of itself.

It's totally relevant as my own administration LIED to me in my face for more than two weeks. Purposeful misinformation in attempt to deflect criticism during a hotly contest election campaign.

 whembly wrote:

 motyak wrote:

I'll pose a question back at you. Do you think this is the best way that these people who are chasing this story could have been serving their people? Because if you do, then we are at opposite ends of this argument.

Well... it's the only way for the public to demand accountability, besides voting them out of the office.

If there were truly no malfeasance by this administration over this ordeal... do you think they'd stonewall/spin is hard as they have been?