Why Won’t Republicans Release the Benghazi Committee’s Interview with Sidney Blumenthal?

Republicans have brought up his name repeatedly but blocked a request to unseal a transcript of his testimony.

<a href=http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Congress-Benghazi/898a8467add642089c9a23412115b149/1/1>Evan Vucci</a>/AP

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


The first session of Hillary Clinton’s testimony before the House Select Committee on Benghazi was mostly a snoozer Thursday morning, featuring much rehashing of old, minor points about whether Clinton, as secretary of state, received requests for further security at the consulate in Benghazi, Libya, before it was attacked on September 11, 2012. But just before the panel broke for lunch, a tussle erupted between the committee’s ranking member, Elijah Cummings (D-Md.), and chairman, Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.). The subject: Sidney Blumenthal, a longtime Clinton associate who regularly emailed Clinton to pass along advice and intel he had picked up on the situation in Libya. Blumenthal, who served as a senior adviser to Bill Clinton during his presidency, has become an obsession of Republicans eager to drag Clinton through the mud. His name came up more than 40 times during the first half of the hearing.

Gowdy (R-S.C.), who had been peppering Clinton with questions about her correspondence with Blumenthal, was poised to adjourn the hearing for lunch when Cummings objected. He made a seemingly simple request: If Gowdy considered Blumenthal’s messages to Clinton so crucial to the investigation at hand, why not release the transcript of the panel’s behind-closed-doors interview with Blumenthal in June? Blumenthal’s own lawyer has requested that the full transcript be released for public consumption.

Cummings, his voice growing in anger, demanded that the committee vote on unsealing the transcript. But Gowdy disputed whether Cummings had the power to call for such a vote, before abruptly recessing the session. When the committee reconvened 45 minutes later, Gowdy had apparently learned he’d been mistaken. He quietly called for a vote on whether Blumenthal’s transcript should become public. The seven Republicans on the committee quickly voted against the measure. (Kansas Rep. Tom Pompeo, momentarily confused, voted yes before switching his to a no vote), overruling the five Democrats who voted in favor. With that matter resolved, Gowdy returned to his questioning of Clinton and turned once again to the subject of…Blumenthal.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate