Return to Transcripts main page

WOLF

Politics of Clinton's Testimony Before Benghazi Committee. Aired 1-1:30p ET

Aired October 22, 2015 - 13:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


[12:59:58] REP. TREY GOWDY, R-S.C., CHAIRMAN, BENGHAZI COMMITTEE: Now, he did not work for the State Department. He didn't work for the U.S. government at all. He wanted to work for the State Department, but the White House said no to him.

Do you recall who specifically at the White House rejected Sidney Blumenthal?

HILLARY CLINTON CLINTON, FORMER SECRETARY OF STATE: No, I do not.

GOWDY: After he was turned down for a job at the State Department by the White House, he went to work where?

CLINTON: I think he had a number of consulting contracts with different entities.

GOWDY: Well, if he had a number of them, do you recall any of them?

CLINTON: I know that he did some work for my husband.

GOWDY: Well, he worked for the Clinton Foundation.

CLINTON: That's -- that's correct.

GOWDY: OK. He worked for Media Matters.

CLINTON: I -- I'm sure he did.

GOWDY: He worked for Correct the Record.

CLINTON: I'm sure he did.

GOWDY: When you were asked about Sidney Blumenthal you said he was an old friend who sent you unsolicited e-mails, which you passed in some instances because you wanted to hear from people outside what you called the bubble.

We will ignore for a second whether or not Sidney Blumenthal is outside the bubble, but I do want to ask you about a couple of those other comments, because what you left out was that he was an old friend who knew absolutely nothing about Libya, was critical of President Obama and others that you work with, loved to send you political and image advice, had business interests in Libya, which he not only alerted you to, but solicited your help for.

And you often forwarded his e-mails, but usually only after you redacted out any identifier, so nobody knew where the information was coming from.

What does the word unsolicited mean to you?

CLINTON: It means that I did not ask him to send me the information that he sent me, and as I have previously stated, some of it I found interesting, some of it I do not. Some of it I forwarded, some of it I do not.

I did not know anything about any business interest. I thought that, just as I said previously, newspaper articles, journalists, of which he is one -- a former journalist -- had some interesting insights. And so, you know, we took them on board and evaluated them, and some were helpful and others were not.

GOWDY: We're going to get to all the points you just made, but I want to start with your -- your public comment that these e-mails were unsolicited.

You wrote to him, Another keeper, thanks and please keep them coming. Greetings from Kabul and thanks for keeping this stuff coming. Any other info about it? What are you hearing now? Got it, we'll follow up tomorrow. Anything else to convey?

Now, that one is interesting because that was the very e-mail where Mr. Blumenthal was asking you to intervene on behalf of a business deal that he was pursuing in Libya.

What did you mean by What are you hearing now?

CLINTON: I have no idea, Congressman.

They started out unsolicited and, as I said, some were of interest. I passed them on, and some were not. And so he continued to provide me information that was made available to him.

GOWDY: I -- I don't want to parse words and -- and I don't want to be hypertechnical, because it's not a huge point, but it is an important point. You didn't say they started off unsolicited. You said they were -- you said they were unsolicited.

CLINTON: Well, they were unsolicited. But obviously, I did respond to some of them.

GOWDY: Well, anything else...

CLINTON: ... And I'm sure that encouraged him.

GOWDY: ... Anything else to convey? What are you hearing now? I'm going to Paris tomorrow night, will meet with TNC (ph) leaders, so this and additional info useful. Still don't have electricity or BlackBerry coverage post-Iran, so I've had to resort to my new iPad. Let me know if you received this. We'll talk about the new iPad in a little bit. Here's another one.

This report is in part a response to your questions. That's an e-mail from him to you. This is -- this report is, in part, a response to your questions. There will be further information in the next day.

If you're the one asking him for information, how does that square with the definition of unsolicited?

CLINTON: I said it began that way, Mr. Chairman, and I will add that both Chris Stevens and Gene Cretz (ph) found some of the information interesting -- far more than I could, because they knew some of the characters who were being mentioned, and they were the ones -- the kind of persons with the expertise -- that I asked to evaluate to see whether there was any useful information.

GOWDY: We're gonna get to that in a second, now. Before you give Mr. Blumenthal too much credit, you agree he didn't

write a single one of those cables or memos he sent you.

CLINTON: I'm sorry, what?

GOWDY: He didn't write a single one of those cables or memos.

[13:05:01] CLINTON: I -- I don't know who wrote them. He's the one who sent them to me.

GOWDY: Would you be surprised to know not a single one of those was from him?

CLINTON: I don't know where he got the information that he was sending to me.

GOWDY: Did you ask? Did you -- did you ask?

You're sending me very specific detailed intelligence, what is your source? That seems like a pretty good question.

CLINTON: Well, I -- I did learn later that he was talking to or sharing information from former American Intelligence Official.

GOWDY: By the name of? Who wrote those cables?

CLINTON: I don't recall -- I don't know, Mr. chairman.

GOWDY: You had this information passed on to others, but, at least on one occasion, you as a Ms. Abenine (ph) can you print without any identifiers?

Why would you want his name removed?

CLINTON: Because I thought that it would be more important to just look at the substance, and to make a determination as to whether or not there was anything to it.

GOWDY: Well, don't people have a right to know the source of the information so they can determine credibility?

CLINTON: But he wasn't, as you just said, the source of the information...

GOWDY: But you didn't know that, Madam Secretary. And that's what you just said.

CLINTON: No, no, Mr. chairman, I said that I knew -- I knew that he didn't have the sources to provide that information. I knew he was getting it from somewhere else, whether they -- he knew a lot of journalists...

GOWDY: Did -- did you ask where?

CLINTON: ... He knew others in Washington. It could have been a variety of people.

GOWDY: If you're gonna -- if you're going to determine credibility, don't you want to know the source?

CLINTON: Well, it wasn't credibility so much as trying to follow the threads that were mentioned about individuals. And, as I already stated, some of it was useful and some of it was not.

GOWDY: Well, did the president know that Mr. Blumenthal was advising you?

CLINTON: He wasn't advising me. And, you know, Mr. chairman...

GOWDY: Did he know that he was your most prolific e-mailer that we have found on the subjects of Libya and Benghazi?

CLINTON: That's because I didn't do most of my work about Libya...

GOWDY: That's fair.

CLINTON: ... On e-mail.

GOWDY: I'm not challenging that, Madam Secretary. I am not challenging that.

All I'm telling you is that documents show he was your most prolific e-mailer on Libya and Benghazi. And my question to you is, did the president -- the same White House that said you can't handle him, and can't hire him -- did he know that he was advising you?

CLINTON: He was not advising me, and I have no reason to have ever mentioned that or know that the president knew that.

GOWDY: All right. I want to draw your attention to an e-mail about Libya from Mr. Blumenthal to you dated April 2011. It will be Exhibit 67. And this is -- this is informative. "Should we pass this on," and in parentheticals, "unidentified to the White House?"

If you were gonna pass something on to the White House, why would you take off the identifiers?

CLINTON: Because it was important to evaluate the information, and from a lot of intelligence that I have certainly reviewed over the years, you often don't have the source of the intelligence. You look at the intelligence, and you try to determine whether or not it is credible. Whether it can be followed up on.

GOWDY: Well, I'm gonna accept the fact that you and I come from different backgrounds, because I can tell you that an unsourced comment could never be uttered in any courtroom. You have to have the...

CLINTON: But we're not talking about courtrooms, Mr. chairman. We're talking about intelligence.

GOWDY: No, we're talking about credibility and the ability to assess who a source is, and whether or not that source has ever been to Libya, knows anything about Libya, or has business interests in Libya -- all of which would be important if you were going to determine the credibility, which I think is why you probably took his information off of what you sent to the White House.

But here's another possible explanation. It may give us a sense of why, maybe the White House didn't want you to hire him in the first place.

In one e-mail he wrote this about the president's Secretary of Defense: "I infer gate (ph) problem as losing an internal debate. Tyler..." And by the way, Tyler Drumheller (ph), that's who actually authored the cables that you got from Mr. Blumenthal.

"... Tyler knows him well and says he's a mean, vicious, little..." I'm not gonna say the word, but he did.

This is an e-mail from Blumenthal to you about the president' Security of Defense.

And here's another Blumenthal e-mail to you about the president's national security adviser. "Frankly, Tom Donelan's (ph) babbling rhetoric about narratives on a phone briefing of reporters on March the 10th has inspired derision among foreign -- serious foreign policy analysts both here and abroad."

And here's another from, what you say is your old friend Sidney Blumenthal. This is a quote from him. "I would say Obama..." -- and by the way, he left the president part out. "I would say Obama appears to be intent on seizing defeat from the jaws of victory. He and his political cronies in the White House and Chicago are, to say the least, unenthusiastic about regime change in Libya. Obama's lukewarm and self-contradicting statements have produced what is, at least for the moment, operational paralysis." [13:10:04] I think, that may give us a better understanding of why the White House may have told you, you cannot hire him.

Blumenthal could not get hired by our government, didn't pass any background check at all, had no role with our government, had never been to Libya, had no expertise in Libya, was critical of the president and others that you worked with, shared polling data with you on the intervention in Libya, gave you political advice on how to take credit for Libya, all the while working for The Clinton Foundation and some pseudo news entities.

And Madam Secretary, he had unfettered access to you. And he used that access, at least on one occasion, to ask you to intervene on behalf of a business venture.

Do you recall that?

CLINTON: You know, Mr. Chairman, if you don't have any friends who say unkind things privately I congratulate you. But from my perspective...

(CROSSTALK)

GOWDY: I'd like to think I'd correct them.

CLINTON: ... I don't know what this line of questioning does to help us get to the bottom of the deaths of four Americans.

(CROSSTALK)

GOWDY: I'll be happy to help you understand that, madam secretary.

CLINTON: But I want to reiterate what I said to Congresswoman Sanchez. These were originally unsolicited. You've just said that perhaps the main, if not the exclusive author, was a former intelligence agent for our country, who rose to the highest levels of the CIA and who was given credit for being one of the very few who pointed out that the intelligence used by the Bush administration to go to war in Iraq was wrong.

So I think that, you know, the sharing of information from an old friend that I did not take at face value, that I sent on to those who were experts, is something that, you know, makes sense.

But it was certainly not in any way the primary source of or the predominant understanding that we had of what was going on in Libya and what we needed to be doing.

GOWDY: Well, Madam Secretary, I'm out of time and we'll pick this back up the next round but I'll go ahead and let you know ahead of time why it's relevant.

It's relevant because our ambassador was asked to read and respond to Sidney Blumenthal's drivel. It was sent to him to read and react to, in some instances on the very same day he was asking for security. So I think it is eminently fair to ask why Sidney Blumenthal had unfettered access to you, Madam Secretary, with whatever he wanted to talk about.

And there's not a single solitary e-mail to or from you to or from Ambassador Stevens. I think that that is fair and we'll take that up.

REP. ELIJAH CUMMINGS (D), SELECT COMMITTEE ON BENGHAZI RANKING MEMBER: Will the gentleman yield?

Will the gentleman yield?

GOWDY: Sure.

CUMMINGS: Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, you've made several inaccurate statements over the past month as you have tried to defend against multiple Republican admissions that the Select Committee has been wasting millions of tax dollars to damage Secretary Clinton's bid for president.

On Sunday, you made another inaccurate statement during your appearance on "Face the Nation" and it's being taken up here. And this is the relevance.

Here's what you said, and I quote, "There are other folks who may have equities in her e-mails and there may be other entities who are evaluating her e-mails. But my interest -- my interest in them is solely making sure that I get everything I'm entitled to so that I can do my job. The rest of it, classification, The Clinton Foundation, you name it, I have zero interest in it, which is why you haven't seen me send a subpoena related to it or interview a single person, other than Brian Fabiano (ph), because I need to know that the record is complete. And I'm going back to the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth."

(CROSSTALK)

GOWDY: I'm waiting...

CUMMINGS: Mr. Chairman, let me finish.

GOWDY: I've been very patient.

CUMMINGS: I'm coming, just wait.

GOWDY: I'm waiting on the inaccurate statement.

CUMMINGS: I'm getting there.

Mr. Chairman...

GOWDY: Well, we got to take a break.

CUMMINGS: Well, it's not going to take a long. You took up four minutes over so let me have three. GOWDY: I've let everybody go over, including you, Mr. Congressman.

CUMMINGS: Thank you very much.

You issued a subpoena to Sidney Blumenthal on May 19th, 2015, compelling him to appear for a deposition on June 16, 2015. You issued this subpoena unilaterally without giving the Select Committee members the opportunity to debate or vote on it.

You sent two armed marshals to serve the subpoena on Mr. Blumenthal's wife at their home without having ever sent him a request to participate voluntarily, which he would have done.

[13:15:04] Then, Mr. Chairman, you personally attended Mr. Blumenthal's deposition; you person personally asked him about The Clinton Foundation and you personally directed your staff to ask questions about The Clinton Foundation, which they did more than 50 times.

Now these facts directly contradict the statements you made on national television.

(CROSSTALK)

GOWDY: No, that's -- no, sir, with all due respect, they do not. We're -- we just heard e-mail after e-mail after e-mail about Libya and Benghazi that Sidney Blumenthal sent to the secretary of state. I don't care if he sent it by Morse code, carrier pigeon, smoke signals, the fact that he happened to send it by e-mail is irrelevant.

What is relevant is that he was sending information to the secretary of state. That is what's relevant. Now, with respect to the subpoena, if he'd bothered to answer the telephone calls of our committee, he wouldn't have needed a subpoena.

CUMMINGS: Will the gentleman yield?

GOWDY: I'll be happy to but you need to make sure the entire record is correct.

CUMMINGS: Yes. And that's exactly what I want to do.

GOWDY: Well, then, go ahead.

CUMMINGS: I'm about to tell you.

I move that we put into the record the entire transcript of Sidney Blumenthal. We're going to release the e-mails; let's do the transcript. That way the world can see it.

(UNKNOWN): I second that motion.

GOWDY: Well, we didn't -- we didn't...

CUMMINGS: That motion has been seconded. GOWDY: Well, we're not going to take that up at a hearing. We'll take that up...

(CROSSTALK)

CUMMINGS: Mr. Chairman, I have consulted with the parliamentarian and they have informed us that we have a right to record a vote on that -- on that motion. We want -- you know, you can ask for the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Well, that's what we want to have. You can put that -- let the world see it.

GOWDY: Why is it that you only want Mr. Blumenthal's transcript released?

Why don't you...

CUMMINGS: I'd like to have all of them released.

GOWDY: The survivors?

Even their names?

You want that?

CUMMINGS: No, you...

GOWDY: You want that released?

CUMMINGS: Well, let me tell you something, right now...

GOWDY: The only one you've asked for is Sidney Blumenthal.

That's the only one you've asked for, that and Ms. Mills.

(UNKNOWN): Cheryl Mills, Cheryl Mills.

CUMMINGS: That's not true.

GOWDY: That's two out of 54.

(UNKNOWN): The chairman asked for a recorded vote?

GOWDY: You want to ask for some facts...

CUMMINGS: I ask for a recorded vote on the -- on the Blumenthal -- you said from the beginning we want the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Why don't we just put the entire transcript out there and let the world see it?

What do you have to hide?

REP. ADAM B. SCHIFF (D), CALIFORNIA (?): These are the only e-mails that you have released and in fairness to Mr. Blumenthal and to the American people, in the interest of a complete record, if you're going to release his e-mails, release his transcript, where he has a chance to give the context of those e-mails.

GOWDY: Well, you keep referring to Blumenthal e-mails. I would hasten to remind both of you the only reason we have Blumenthal e- mails is because he e-mailed the secretary of state. Those are her e- mails. That's why they were released. They're not Blumenthal's e- mails. And she wanted all of her e-mails released. She's been saying since March I want the entire world to see my e-mails.

Well, Sidney Blumenthal's e-mails are part of that.

So here's what I'll do. I'll be happy to talk to the parliamentarian because the parliamentarian told me that your motion actually would not be in order for a hearing. But at the latest we'll take a vote and the first we are back after this week we'll have a business meeting, we can take up Mr. Blumenthal's transcript. We can take up what ever other transcripts you want.

And while we're there, we can also take up the 20-some odd outstanding discovery requests that we have to different executive branch entities.

Why don't we just take all of it up then?

SCHIFF: Mr. Chairman, the allegations that have been made against him are refuted by his own testimony, in the interest of not having...

GOWDY: That's your opinion, Adam.

SCHIFF: Well, if you disagree, then release the transcripts.

(CROSSTALK)

GOWDY: What allegation, Adam?

SCHIFF: Why conceal the transcripts?

Even if the motion were not in order, you have to power to release them.

GOWDY: I'll tell you why, because I'm not going to release one transcript of someone who knows nothing about Libya by his own admission while people who risk their lives -- you have no interest in their story getting out. You don't want the -- you don't want the 18 D.S. agents, you don't want the CIA agents.

The only transcripts you want released are Ms. Mills and Sidney Blumenthal's. So we'll take all of this up... SCHIFF: And the only person you are interested in asking about during her entire questioning was Sidney Blumenthal. If you're so interested in him, release the transcript. You selectively released his e-mails, they're the only witness you've done that for. So you're asking why are we only ask asking for his transcript? GOWDY: I'm going to ask the gentleman from California to please do a better job of characterizing. These are not Sidney Blumenthal's e-mails. These are Secretary Clinton's e-mails. And I'll tell you what, if you think you've heard about Sidney Blumenthal so far, wait until the next round.

With that, we're adjourned.

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: All right, so there you have it, quite an exchange at the very end between the chairman of the select committee, Trey Gowdy, the ranking Democrat, Elijah Cummings. And you saw Adam Schiff, the Democrat -- he's the ranking member of the House Intelligent Committee from California -- getting involved as well.

There you see right in the front of your screen, David Kendall, he's the former secretary's personal attorney, who's there. You see Cheryl Mills, who was the legal adviser to the secretary when she served over at the State Department. You see some of her other top aides there as well.

[13:20:07] Quite a lively session the first three, almost three and a half hours and it's going to be several more hours before this day is done. You see the secretary there behind those women. She's getting ready to walk out. They're going to take a little lunch break and resume presumably I'm guessing in about an hour or so.

But, Jake Tapper, at the very end, we saw what was going on over there. It was -- it was quite intense between these Democrats and Republicans.

JAKE TAPPER, ANCHOR, CNN'S "THE LEAD": It's interesting. It's almost as if the Democrats on the House Benghazi Committee were trying to take the opposite advice that Hillary Clinton has been given. Hillary Clinton has been told, rise above it, stay calm, don't get upset, don't let your feathers get ruffled, be calm, cool and collected. The Democrats have spent every time that they've had an opportunity to testify -- to ask questions to basically try to discredit and undermine their own committee and they've basically been trying to bait the Republicans, especially Chairman Gowdy, into himself erupting, into trying to get him to lose his cool.

And while Hillary Clinton so far has avoided the pitfalls of when she testified that time a few years ago and said, "at this point what difference does it make," not a great moment in her testimony career. Gowdy has allowed himself to be taken down this path of whether or not they should release these records and whether or not Sidney Blumenthal, Hillary Clinton's friend, should be the major issue.

There have been some interesting points that have been made. We heard some large scale policy critiques of the Libya policy led by Hillary Clinton. Congresswoman Susan Brooks trying to make the point that Hillary Clinton was much more engaged in day-to-day safety in Libya in 2011 than she was in 2012. Congresswoman Robi (ph) also making that point.

And then, of course, in -- when Congressman Westmoreland was talking to her, he managed to get from her that Chris Stevens, this person, this late ambassador who was killed tragically on September 11, 2012, who she describes as a good friend, that he did not have her e-mail address.

But then, since then, we've gone down this rabbit hole dealing with her friend, Sidney Blumenthal, that I don't know that if there are any schoolchildren watching this testimony out there, that it's going to give them a lot of confidence in our American legislative branch.

BLITZER: What's -- what's significant, though, for Hillary Clinton is that she does have these Democrats on the select committee who are obviously coming to her defense at every opportunity and challenging the Republicans. Had she appeared only with Republicans there, would have been a different game today. It would have been a different round of testimony. She wouldn't have had that kind of protection. And there's been some discussion among the Democrats whether to boycott this hearing, the continuing hearings. Clearly, from her perspective, it's good that those Democrats are there.

TAPPER: They're doing her work for her. They are the ones calling the committee partisan. They are the ones attacking the committee, attacking Chairman Gowdy. Gowdy, obviously, feeling very defensive. He's talked a number of times, we're trying to respond to members of the committee who are assailing the committee as accomplishing nothing. He, at one point said to I think it was Congressman Smith from Washington state, a Democrat, Gowdy saying all -- he made a reference to all the things that this committee found that your committee missed, obviously trying to make the case that his committee has been very serious and should not be considered partisan.

But I think ultimately Hillary Clinton is -- benefits greatly from having all those Democrats on the committee because they are doing everything they can to protect her and to attack the very committee that they sit upon.

BLITZER: You're absolutely right. She's keeping her cool. She's being very confident, responding to the questions. And it's probably doing some good for her in the process as well.

Dana Bash is outside the hearing.

Dana, you've got Elijah Cummings, the ranking Democrat, with you. We're anxious to hear what he thinks of the first three and a half hours.

DANA BASH, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Of course, I will.

Thank you very much for walking over, Mr. Cummings.

That was quite a bit of fireworks at the end there.

CUMMINGS: Yes, our point is, is that the chairman started off with the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. And we know that there have been all kinds of leaks. And then with regard to Mr. Blumenthal, he's the only person whose e-mails have been released. And basically what we're saying is, if you're going to ask questions about these things, just put out the whole transcript. So -- because these -- all -- the things these -- don't just put out the e-mails when you've had an eight or nine hours with Mr. Blumenthal asking him questions about these e-mails. Just release the damn transcript.

BASH: What about his point that if you want to release the transcript from Sidney Blumenthal's interview, what about releasing all of the transcripts?

CUMMINGS: I have said it -- I have said it over and over again. Once appropriate --

[13:25:02] BASH: He made it sound like Democrats don't want to do it.

CUMMINGS: No, no, wait (ph). No, no, no, that's not true. I have said it many times. I want -- I said it as late as this weekend on one of the national Sunday shows, release all of them. I have seen -- and take out the appropriate redactions, you know, for security reasons and, you know, whatever the CIA or others may have concerns about, but release them all. There's nothing to hide. I want the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I do believe that Republicans don't want to use -- people to see the Blumenthal transcript --

BASH: Why is that? Can -- can you tell us --

CUMMINGS: Because they spent a lot of time --

BASH: Tell us what's in there that --

CUMMINGS: We've already talked -- we issued press releases about the types of questions that are asked about the foundation, about the -- that is the Clinton Foundation, a lot of questions. It has absolutely nothing to do with Benghazi. It had nothing to do with Libya.

All we want to do is put the -- that whole truth out there. And it's as simple as that. You know, nothing to hide. Nothing. And --

BASH: You know, let me --

CUMMINGS: And I want to go back to what you just asked me. I didn't get a chance -- was trying to get the -- get him to let me say this at the end. I have no problem with every single transcript of every interview put -- made public, as long as the appropriate redactions are made. I have no problem with that. Matter of fact, I want that, because I think then the public will really see what's going on here.

BASH: Let me ask you a question about the big picture, what Mr. Gowdy was saying, is that -- is that this is not from his perspective a prosecution. This is -- where there's a conclusion already made. This is an investigation. You've, obviously -- you're the ranking Democrat. You've been involved in this. Do you buy that?

CUMMINGS: You know, I wish I -- I wish I could accept the fact that conclusions were not already made before we even got started. They were made. And this has been a constant drum beat to disrupt, destroy the campaign of Hillary Clinton. It took me a long time to get there. It's a painful conclusion to come to. But I've been one -- I have a history over my 20 years of try to stand up for the integrity of not only the committees but of the Congress. And that's why I say that I have no problem seeing all the information out there because I think when you look at what I've seen from these interviews, there is very little that's new. And even some of the things that they may be referring to, I think it just basically cooperates what has already been put in eight or nine reports, investigations. And so, you know, we'll see what they'll --

BASH: When did you come to that conclusion? You said it was painful to come to.

CUMMINGS: It's been -- I can't tell you the exact date, but it's -- it's been very -- I mean I see more -- every time I see things being done, which go against what I believe an appropriate bipartisan investigation should be, it's like a chipping away. And it took me a while to get there, but I'm there. And so now I just -- what I'm doing, I'm doing what I said I was going to do from the very beginning. The question was asked from the very beginning of this committee, why are you on the committee? And I said -- and I said this and I'll say it again, it is to defend the truth. Whatever that is. Whatever it is. I am not here to defend Hillary Clinton. I am here to defend the truth.

BASH: Thank you, Mr. Cummings. Appreciate it.

CUMMINGS: Thank you all.

BASH: So there you heard there, pretty passionate from Elijah Cummings. He has certainly been in his fair share of extremely partisan hearings, extremely partisan investigations. So this is nothing new for him, which is why he was put in this -- in this situation. But the whole discussion about releasing transcripts or not releasing transcripts obviously speaks to the whole question of whether there is or isn't a partisan motivation here, so we'll see how that part ends.

Wolf.

BLITZER: Yes, it certainly underscores, Dana, the tension that was clearly evidence during the first three and a half hours and presumably, well I'm guessing, will even escalate during the next three and a half hours as this hearing continues after this quick lunch break.

Dana, stand by.

Gloria Borger, curious, how do you think the secretary -- the former secretary of state did?

GLORIA BORGER, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL ANALYST: I think she did what she needed to do. I think she did a good job. I think her body language, to me, and we were talking about it at the table here, told it all. You know, at the beginning she kind of centered herself, ready for the -- for the incoming. And when the -- when the -- when the committee devolved into, you know, partisan wrangling between the chairman and the ranking member, she just kind of sat there like this, as if you would sit by saying, honey, is there anything else on that you could flip the channel to because she had this sort of bemused look almost. And it was perfect because she just sat back and it -- and the wrangling is actually what workings for her.

[13:29:55] I would also have to say that at the beginning of the hearing, Congressman Roskam (ph) asked a very legitimate question, which is, I think this -- this policy in Libya was bad. You own the bad Libya policy. And he tried to kind of make that point. She said it was the president's policy. We were just -- you know, we -- we were just carrying it out.