Gowdy: Benghazi Testimony Will Implicate “The One Who Is Not The Current President, But Her Husband Was”

trey gowdy

As we count down the minutes before the Oversight and Reform hearing at 11:30 am, Eastern, here’s something to whet our appetites.

Rep Trey Gowdy was a guest on the Hugh Hewitt Show, yesterday, and he had several very interesting things to say, primarily regarding Gregory Hicks, Foreign Service Officer and former Deputy Chief of Mission/Chargé d’Affairs in Libya at the US Department of State.

H: And I really do put a lot of hope in you guys. One of the things I want to hear from Mr. Hicks, and you tell me whether you think this is a valid inquiry, is whether or not he feels that the President, the Vice President, or the former Secretary of State, former Secretary of Defense, have lied to the American people in statements that they’ve made. He can’t obviously prove that, but his subjective impression would go a long way towards generating interest, because he’s the guy who knows most closely, doesn’t he, what happened?

TG: He did. He was the highest ranking person in Libya once the ambassador was killed. And of course, he remained there, I can tell you, that he will come closer to being able to speak to the Secretary of State, because that’s in his line of command. I can tell you that there are going to be exchanges that he had with the Secretary of State’s chief of staff, which are troubling at best.

HH: Wow.

TG: And I can tell you beyond any reasonable doubt that he was devastated by what Susan Rice said. And you know, if Hillary Clinton’s defense needs to be, ‘I was so out of it and not doing my job that I never talked to a Greg Hicks or anyone else, or Susan Rice, didn’t prepare her before she went on the five Sunday talk shows’, then that’ll just have to be her defense. Don’t blame me because I was absent at the switch. I don’t think that’s going to bode well for her future ambitions. But I know he can say, and will, that Susan Rice’s Sunday morning talk show directly contradicted the evidence the president of Libya, Christopher Stevens’ dying declaration, and negatively impacted our ability to find out what happened. Now if that’s not enough to infuriate our fellow citizens, I don’t know how much better we can do.

— – –

HH: Well, I can guarantee you a few things. One of them is he isn’t going to listen to me. But on Page 11 of that joint special report, Trey Gowdy, that the five committees put together, if you read it enough times, things stand out. These lines appear. “Ambassador Stevens traveled to Benghazi on September 10, 2012, to fill staffing gaps between principal officers in Benghazi, and to allow him to reconnect with local contacts. He also planned to attend the establishment of a new American corner at a local Benghazi school.” Now it’s September 11th in a war-torn, insecure compound that has been the subject of numerous attacks by violent, local jihadists. He does not take adequate security with him. Mr. Hicks can speak to what he was doing there. Will that come up tomorrow?

TG: Yes, sir, and Hugh, let me tell you this. Suffice it to say there’s more to it than what you just read. And yes, it will be dealt with. It’s important to know the chronology you just set out. It’s important to know whether that chronology was altered, and if so, why. And it’s important, I think, to have the background on what he really was doing in Benghazi. And that may implicate one of the three folks you have previously asked me about in the administration.

HH: Now the next thing I wanted, that is pregnant, and I heard it, and one of the things I was just going to say, you’ve got to listen to when the answer is pregnant. Which of the three do you think it may implicate?

TG: Yeah, it would be the one that is not the current president, but her husband was.

HH: Okay, got it.


HH: All right, then Jake Tapper, this one you will. Jake Tapper began the show today, and he made an appeal. He said look, if you’re a whistleblower, or if you know something about this, come to me, come to Bret Baier, come to the media, because the media will add credibility to the investigation that Republicans can’t bring to the table. What do you make of that?

TG: That’s true. Unfortunately, that’s probably true that the media is more widely regarded than House Republicans. I would also give anyone listening to your show that is contemplating that, I would simply tell them this. The family members are going to be there tomorrow. And if you can look at a widow, or a sister who’s lost her brother, or parents who have lost children, if you can look them in the eyes and you have information that can give them peace, and more importantly, hold your government accountable, and you say silent when you know that Darrell Issa and others are going to protect you and give you counsel, and make sure you’re not retributed against? I don’t see how anyone can sit there with knowledge and be quiet when what they have to say can not only bring truth to government, but also bring peace to people who are suffering. So whether they go to the media or whether they come to Darrell, or whether they go to Elijah Cummings, I don’t care where they go. If you have first-hand knowledge, you should come forward. It is the moral thing to do.

HH: Now last question, Trey Gowdy, on July 13th, 1973, Alexander Butterfield told Senate investigators that there was a taping system in the White House. He didn’t go public with that until his Senate testimony three days later on July 16th. And of course, it shook the United States of America. On the Richter Scale, you’ve read the depositions, so you know what is already gone to staff, and what may come out tomorrow. On the Richter of Senate and House hearings, where is tomorrow’s?

TG: Well, I’ll answer that question this way. My fear over the weekend was that a lot of the information that I thought would be most interesting tomorrow has already been released. So I went to staff, and I went to others, and said with any jury trial, you have to save something back. You have to be interesting on the day of the trial. And I have been assured, in fact, I know, because I’ve seen it myself, there’s going to be new, provocative, instructive, dare not use the word explosive, but there’s going to be information that comes out tomorrow that whether people have been so desensitized to government lying to them that they don’t care anymore, I cannot speak to that. But if you’re interested in Benghazi, there is going to be enough new material tomorrow to make you absolutely livid that it’s taken eight months for us to get to this point.

3 thoughts on “Gowdy: Benghazi Testimony Will Implicate “The One Who Is Not The Current President, But Her Husband Was”

  1. It does seem that folks are leaving out the advisors – Valarie Marxist Jarrett and Brennan. Those two, when push come to shove, are in this manure pile up to their eyeballs.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s