On Sunday’s Meet the Press, moderator Chuck Todd hit House Benghazi committee chairman Trey Gowdy over his questioning of Hillary Clinton last week, specifically over the subject of Sidney Blumenthal.
The NBC News Political Director asked Gowdy “[y]ou had made a promise that you were keeping the focus on Benghazi. Do you feel as if you did as much or -- even some Republicans were wondering why you were going down the Sidney Blumenthal -- what some called a rabbit hole.”
For his part, Gowdy pushed back and argued that his questioning of Clinton regarding her relationship with Blumenthal was not a “rabbit hole”:
[T]hose are not Sidney Blumenthal's e-mails they are Secretary Clinton's e-mails to or from Sidney Blumenthal and every one of them relates to Libya and Benghazi. So I'm not reading Blumenthal e-mails about bridesmaids dresses or wedding plans or yoga. These are all about Libya and Benghazi.
Todd then tried to amend his question and said that it was the amount of time spent on Blumenthal that was troubling:
Well, nobody is questioning whether to ask about them. I think it was the amount of time spent on it. It seemed like a larger portion of time was spent on that. For instance, I didn't hear as many questions that I expected to hear on the Libya policy in general, the vacuum that was left that ultimately created the security situation that we had in Benghazi that lead to the death of four Americans.
Despite Todd’s best efforts, Gowdy refused to accept the premise that too much time was spent on Blumenthal and proceeded to outline the wide range of questions that were asked of Ms. Clinton throughout the hearing:
I think Peter Roskam and Mike Pompeo both asked, maybe all of their series of questions on the tick tock memo and I remember Susan Brooks having a stack of e-mails in 2011 versus 2012 and 2011 there was a heightened interest in Libya and Benghazi and 2012 it appeared to dissipate, at least according to the e-mails.
As the interview wrapped up, Todd tried one final time to get Gowdy to admit he should have handled the hearing with Clinton differently:
You said “Part of what I saw wasn't that constructive and for the American people to just tune into a nine hour food fight, I would air on the side of a private one before I would do that.”...It sounds like you may regret how you went about questioning Secretary Clinton that maybe you should have done some of it off camera and only some of it on camera. What do-over do you want?
While Gowdy refused to say he wanted a “do-over” when it came to Hillary Clinton’s testimony, he acknowledged that when the committee had conducted other interviews in private, they were more effective at getting at the truth.
See relevant transcript below.
NBC’s Meet the Press
October 25, 2015
CHUCK TODD: Let me ask you, we did a little calculation here on the number of words that you used during the hearing. You said the word "Benghazi" 17 times. Blumenthal 35 times. E-mails 76 times. You had made a promise that you were keeping the focus on Benghazi. Do you feel as if you did as much or -- even some Republicans were wondering why you were going down the Sidney Blumenthal -- what some called a rabbit hole.
TREY GOWDY: Well, I don't think it's a rabbit hole, chuck and I'll tell you why. I respect the fact that other people have different perspectives but to me those are not Sidney Blumenthal's e-mails they are Secretary Clinton's e-mails to or from Sidney Blumenthal and every one of them relates to Libya and Benghazi. So I'm not reading Blumenthal e-mails about bridesmaids dresses or wedding plans or yoga.
These are all about Libya and Benghazi and to the extent that he was one of the more prolific e-mailers to her on the subject matter how do you not ask how does this person who has no formal role in government and no expertise in Libya or Benghazi, how does he have unfettered access to you but the ambassador -- there is not a single e-mail to or from him. So I get people want to refer to these as Sidney Blumenthal e-mails. They're Hillary Clinton e-mails that she received from him and, frankly, I think it would be a dereliction of duty if you didn't ask about them.
TODD: Well, nobody is questioning whether to ask about them. I think it was the amount of time spent on it. It seemed like a larger portion of time was spent on that. For instance, I didn't hear as many questions that I expected to hear on the Libya policy in general, the vacuum that was left that ultimately created the security situation that we had in Benghazi that lead to the death of four Americans.
GOWDY: I think Peter Roskam and Mike Pompeo both asked, maybe all of their series of questions on the tick tock memo and I remember Susan Brooks having a stack of e-mails in 2011 versus 2012 and 2011 there was a heightened interest in Libya and Benghazi and 2012 it appeared to dissipate, at least according to the e-mails. So Chuck as you know, when you go into hearings each of the seven members has his or her own lane.
That's what they’re going to ask on and I do think it's relevant on two different levels. Whether or not his e-mails were solicited or unsolicited you can certainly argue is irrelevant. But she said they were unsolicited and I do think credibility is always relevant. If they were truly unsolicited then she wouldn't have changed her testimony on Thursday.
TODD: Let me ask you this. You said this the other night on Fox with Greta van Susteren. You said “Part of what I saw wasn't that constructive and for the American people to just tune into a nine hour food fight, I would air on the side of a private one before I would do that.” It was in response to a question about future witnesses that you would bring on, whether it would be on TV or not. It sounds like you may regret how you went about questioning Secretary Clinton that maybe you should have done some of it off camera and only some of it on camera. What do-over do you want?
GOWDY: Well, Chuck, it was a voluntary interview. I didn't send a subpoena to Secretary Clinton, it was a voluntary interview and she wanted it to be in public. I wrote a letter several months ago giving her an option and she chose public and that's well within her rights. I can just tell you that of the 50 some odd interviews we have done thus far, the vast majority of them have been private and you don't see the bickering among the members of Congress in private interviews. You don't see any of that.
TODD: The TV camera ads to the grandstanding on both sides of the aisle?
GOWDY: What do you think, Chuck? You've been following Congress for a long time. I can just tell you in the private interviews there is never any of what you saw Thursday. It is one hour on the Republican side, one hour on the Democrat side which is why you're going to see the next two dozen interviews done privately because it is -- look at the other investigations that are being done right now. The Lois Lerner investigation that was just announced, was that public or private? How about Comey's investigation? Is that public or private? The private ones always produce better results.
