Washington’s Democrat Congressman Adam Smith decided it was a good use of taxpayer dollars to spend the time allotted to him as a member of the Benghazi committee to grandstand for his party. At times it appeared he was auditioning to be part of some future Clinton administration. Other times he simply attacked his fellow Republican committee members to show he was a partisan hack.
Smith even managed to find a newfound respect for taxpayer dollars when he complained of the $4.6 million dollars spent for the committee. GOP Rep. Trey Gowdy took issue with Smith’s complaint, pointing out that Democrats “don’t raise a single whisper to spend $50 million to train five ISIS fighters, but God forbid we spend one-tenth of that to investigate (Benghazi).”
But, perhaps the most absurd comment made by Smith—and his fellow Democrats—was when he alleged that the committee has not learned anything. To help Smith out, here are three new—and incredibly important—discoveries made by the Benghazi committee.
- Ambassador Chris Stevens issued more than 600 requests for additional security. Hillary Clinton claimed she did not receive any of those requests… right after she insisted Stevens was a personal friend. Yet, Sidney Blumenthal’s 150 emails managed to reach her just fine. Clinton admitted she did not speak to Stevens after she swore him in. Americans deserve to know why their former Secretary of State thought a million-dollar campaign donor—and a novice on Libya—was allowed an untethered line of communication. But, an expert on Libya and sitting ambassador was not.
- Emails reveal Hillary Clinton called the Benghazi attack a planned act of terror to her family and the Egyptian prime minister. Yet, Clinton and her staff told the American people that the attack was a spontaneous response to an infamous YouTube clip mocking Muslims. Clinton lied to the American people. Americans deserve to know why.
- The Obama administration told Hillary Clinton that she could not hire Sidney Blumenthal as an advisor. Yet, Clinton forwarded memos sent to her by Blumenthal to the White House, merely removing any mention of Blumenthal’s name. Making matters worse, when questioned, Clinton said the source of the information was not important, just the content. Of course, that is a ridiculous attempt to defend an indefensible act. The origin of information—especially sensitive information—is always important. Clinton’s disregard for authority—seemingly in order to appease a campaign donor—proves she believes she is above mere rules.