there are only three assets that only ever made it to benghazi. to unarmed drones and the team from tripoli who deployed themselves. they were not ordered to go. they they were not order to go. deployed themselves. they deployed themselves. glenn doherty was on that plane from tripoli to benghazi. and, glenn doherty not only flew from tripoli to benghazi but he negotiated at the airport with libyans that were supposed to be our friends to get to the annex so he could help defend that facility. and, he got there just in time to join his fellow navy seal tyrone woods minutes before they both died. it has been said that nothing could have reached benghazi before the lethal border attacks and i suppose what is meant by that is nothing other than the two unarmed drones and the team from tripoli that deployed in -- itself.

what is missing in that analysis and is pretty simple and straightforward to those who of us who have been investigating it for the past two years is nothing could have reached in gaza because nothing was ever headed to benghazi. no u.s. military asset was ever deployed to benghazi despite the order of the secretary of defense at 7:00 that night. access togton had real-time information yet somehow they thought the fighting had subsided. washington had access to real-time information but somehow they thought these fighters were going to evacuate even without the remains of the ambassador. and without asking how that evacuation was supposed to be effectuated? how are you supposed to get from the annex to the benghazi airport because it took you almost three hours to get from the airport to the annex. who was supposed to take you? so, those were the discussions being contemplated in washington

in the mistaken believe an evacuation was imminent without asking the question of how do you expect us to effectuate this evacuation? washington had access to thattime information but real-time information did not inform and in the decisions made in washington. after assets word deployed to help our men, the white house convened a two-hour meeting. and perhaps nothing shows the contrast between what was happening in benghazi and what was happening in washington the end that two-hour white house and for some reason the readouts the at came from it. -- that came from it. so it is true, nothing could have reached glenn doherty and

woods because nothing was ever going towards glenn doherty and mr. woods. that would eventually of the mortar attacks had taken place at 7:15 a.m. or 9:00 a.m. or even at lunchtime on the 12th. because at the time those two americans were killed, not a single wheel of a single u.s. military asset had even turned toward libya. our report starts with the attack and there is a section on the post-attack communication between the government and the american citizenry and there is a section on pre-attack decisions made and not made which led to the environment which made our facility vulnerable. it is always better to be the first committee to investigate. it is always better to investigate as contemporaneously to an event as can be done. our committee did not have the luxury of either one of those. we began a year and a half after

the incident. but collectively and individually, all seven of us believe there are more questions asked, there are more answers to acquire, more witnesses to acquire, more documents to access, and this report validates that belief. there is new information on what happened in benghazi ended that information should fundamentally change the way you view what happened in benghazi and there are recommendations made to make sure it does not happen again. in conclusion, with respect to my remarks, want to thank the house of representatives for giving us the honor of investigating our brave, courageous citizens and those who were injured and those who fell so valiantly that night. i want to thank the six member standing up with me who took on this assignment not a little of their other committee assignments but in addition thereto and the women and men on our staff who took on what proved to be and incredibly difficult challenge. they did so out of a singular motivation.

honoring four people whose political ideations none of us know anything about. they gave their lives in benghazi. lastly, i want to thank my fellow citizens for bearing with our committee as we went through the process of uncovering new information and accessing witnesses and documents. i hope my fellow citizens will read this report, not for me, but for those who sacrificed and those nameless, faceless americans who in controversial bully saved other -- who in -- who saved other american

lives that night. i hope you will read the report with them in mind. and i would hasten to add you from pillars report to post in less time than our fellow americans were under attack in benghazi. i am asking you to do is a fairly small investment given what others were willing to do on our behalf and with that i would recognize the gentleman from georgia. >> thank you chairman. i, too, want to thank the committee members here for participating in this. that ibeen hard work think we also have to thank the staff. i want to thank all of the personal staff that especially the staff with benghazi.

we have produced new evidence that will allow the citizens of this country to take all of the that came outes from the investigations and to tie those things together. one of the reasons this committee was formed was each committee has a lame. these lanes were continually getting confused and back and forth about who had the interview who. this committee was put together to bridge those gaps and get new information out. that is what we have done. i think if you read the report you will see, as the chairman mentioned that what was going on at 10:08 when the secretary made her first comments, we had men on the roof trying to protect their lives and the lives of others.

in these newdone fact we discover, and there are many of them, is we have allowed people to take those new fact with the old facts and some have re-evaluated and determined that they were not actually good. so we cooperated some of those other things -- corroborated some of the use and that report. , if theycan people read this, they will come up with their own opinion of what happened. there is enough new evidence that people will be able to put together for their self what led up to this attack, went one on during the attack and the post-attack when there was so much miss information that was being repeated by this administration. with that, i will turn it back stop >>the general full

the chairman mentioned that attack, no military assets were going toward benghazi. what did start was the spin. with fighting for their lives still happening, mrs. clinton issued this statement. was issued as a response to inflammatory material on the internet and we know it was misleading because one hour later she told her daughter, they killed two of our people today. the next a she told the egyptian prime minister, we know the film had nothing to do with it. it was a planned attack, not a protest. this public-private contrast continued four days. americans iting was a video, privately telling america -- i've telling others it was a terrorist attack.

had mr. carney at a press briefing saying this, no information to suggest in gaza and was a preplanned attack. no information to suggest a preplanned attack. that same day, state official in abya said in ghazi was well-planned attack. he could not have a starker contrast they had met those two statements and i think it is important to remember, do not get the context. be theas supposed to crowning jewel of the clinton state department foreign policy and the obama foreign-policy. this was their example of how it works. no boots on the ground fault -- no boots on the ground. most the dictator. in fact, one of the things we discussed, an e-mail talking about leadership, stewardship, ownership from start to finish, this was something hillary

clinton pushed for and got done. maybe the better one is the e-mail from sidney blumenthal. a few days after qaddafi had been removed t sent an e-mail to the secretary and said, this is a big moment. you should do a press event even if it is in the driveway of your own home. he finished with this, this is a big moment. you are vindicated. do not wait. help clear out now. cleo, of course, is the goddess of history. to this.ere committed invested in this. this was it. this is how it was supposed to work. they were so committed it did not matter there were 200 security incidents from the time blumenthal sent the e-mail and the timely terrorist attack happened. it did not matter that they went to benghazi, did service, came back and said, it is a suicide mission. walt, everybody there is going to die. it did not matter that on august 17 of 2012, 3 and half weeks

before the attack, mmo was sent to sec. clinton and she talked about the uptick in violence and urgency, lawlessness, widespread violence. it did not matter because they were committed to this policy. and then it happened. then it happened. the terrorist attack on september 11, 2012. these before vice president bin laden isd dead, a narrative that al qaeda was on the run. now they have a terrorist attack and they have to mislead the american people because it is 66 days before an election, the legacy is on the line and she has the goddess of history looking over her shoulder. put together a report we think supplements the good work in the old report.

we did that because we feel it is important to know what happened and also why. why did it happen. you look at every step of this and i am concerned as sure as i am standing here, it happened because of clinical concerns this administration had. why did we stand benghazi when everyone else was leaving? when did we stay when -- why did we stay when the security position was a dangerous. why did we mislead the american people and why were they talking about making sure the military went in wearing civilian clothes and not uniforms. we outline in our report. as the chairman said, i encourage you to read both because it tells that story and that is something that should greatppen in a country as as ours, where political concerns dominate instead of telling the truth in a straightforward fashion.

>> america asks its citizens to go to dangerous places and do dangerous things. these people who are in clandestine services go willingly and acknowledging there is a risk. but the understanding they carry with them is that if they end up and harm's way's, historically they can rest assured the country will do everything in can do to rescue them. that is not a guarantee. the people who go and accept these assignments voluntarily know there is a risk but the understanding is that their nation will move heaven and earth to save them. that did not happen and four people were murdered. the scandal of benghazi. the thing i take away and that has been mentioned by previous speakers is this jarring

contrast between the and genuity and the heroism and the initiative that was taking place at benghazi. you can read these communications and understand the urgency of what they were dealing with and it's overwhelming sense of othersibility to rescue americans. meanwhile, across the ocean, almost a disposition of near-fecklessness. the summary of this meeting that a.m.,lace at seven: 30 half of the discussion, half of the readout according to the information we became privy to suggested they were talking about a video. when you read this information you come to the conclusion, at least i did, that they are more concerned about whether or they are going to be offending the libyan government i how it is this rescue is supposed to take place then whether the rescue is actually successful. marinate on that for a second.

they are worried about approval. worried about how this will come up. it is clear they were worried before that from pulling back from in ghazi, that is what the testimony shows because an early exit from benghazi would've done what? i've set the libyans. that is outrageous. and this is before he is ambassador. when he is the envoy. he lands with no diplomatic immunity. he is on his own. it was a white house policy of no boots on the ground that deprived him of military support. military support that was previously going to a company m. that he went in alone. it is a foreshadowing of things to come. at this notion of responsibility. there has been a a lot of discussion. at the end of august we learned that before the attack sec.

clinton approved a $20 million grant to who? to the libyans. but this was the same state department that basically stiff request after another request, cumulative requests. requests for security and more support that were essentially rejected, ignored, put somewhere else. here is what is in it for us. here's what we have to recognize. if we are going to ask americans to put themselves at risk in the future, we have got to remedy this. all abuzz. america needs to have a reputation with people who are serving america that amerco will follow its end of the bargain. america, that is, the bureaucrats in washington, failed miserably. >> 56 days.

you cannot begin to understand and place all of the facts this committee has worked diligently, while understanding this took contestedays before a presidential election for the united states. whether to put adequate security on the ground. it is the continued story in spite of enormous about a to the contrary youtube video. and all takes place against a political backdrop. do not take my word for that. read the e-mails. before the last border falls, they are talking about politics and debating on whether or not to send more security to libya. their concerns were not for the territory thatat night. when you read what the intelligence was the night of the attack from in ghazi, libya,

it is uniform and uncontroverted. this was an attack by radical islamists on an american facility. there was a fog of war. there was no dispute except for a few stray news reports. the news was clear. go read what sec. clinton said. go read the news from others who were on the ground. no read what came from most senior officials. it was not about a youtube video. it was not about a protest. when sec. clinton said, what difference does it make? weekend now as a result of our work over the last year and have to you exactly what difference it makes. it makes a difference in how you respond to an attack. whether you think this was just a bunch of folks walking around or a continued, five-day assault on america that took place in benghazi, libya that night. washington, d.c., views this as having ended once our people of

benghazi. the men on that ground that night understood this was not at over. they understood the terror was still up on them and the risk of their lives were still up them. it had nothing to do with whether or not we had aircraft and route to benghazi. you cannot begin to exercising leadership you need to exercise if you do not understand what is happening on the ground and if you choose to put political expediency ahead of the men and women on the ground. i find it morally reprehensible and if it was your son or your daughter or one of your family members or friends on the ground and you watch the actions on the ground and washington, d.c., you have every right to be disgusted this is a failure at the most hope thevel and one i recommendations is committee presents will help make sure nothing like this ever happens again.

let me start by saying i am so proud of this report. i am so proud of the work this committee has done as a whole majority. i want to thank our chairman gowdy and the rest of the members of this committee for the way in which this investigation was handled and for his leadership as our chairman. this investigation has uncovered information, which it leads to our much greater understanding about what happened before, during, and after the attack in an gaudy while our guys were on the ground taking gunfire and mortar attacks, washington was moving at a snail's pace. in washington, the administration was more concerned about diplomatic sensitivities and promoting its

policy as successful than it was tout the americans they sent benghazi. at the end of the day, and no military assets were ever moving toward benghazi, the bottom line was that america failed to have an guys backs when they needed it. from our perspective, this represents incompetence or indifference or both. now, the bravery of a few of americans and the unexpected response of qaddafi's underground militia, qaddafi's underground militia, there would have been an even greater loss of life that night. in this case, i believe the government hailed as people and public.the

this is unacceptable and i know this report shines light on that and god willing will prevent this from ever happening again. want to thank our chairman. this has been an incredible task to undertake. we have worked day in and day out and particularly the staff to bring facts to the american people that we did not know before. we have been focused on issues prior to the attack and the things we learned about benghazi, there were many new things we learned. admitted and it has been known for some time that security was inadequate. but what we did not know until this investigation was the state department made a conscious decision to keep the benghazi the radar andf

not provided to the security it needed. and fact, none of the facilities met any of what they needed required by law. when chris stevens was sent into benghazi, he was initially going in with military but because of the policy of no boots on the thatd, at the last minute military support was pulled. so we know the mission did not have enough security, whether it was people or physical security tools. but he had a mission into he had a mission to ensure that benghazi became a permanent post at some point because it was the individuals in benghazi that had helped lead the mission to apple coffee. the administration, the clinton administration, the secretary of state, wanted to show benghazi how important they

were. they wanted to show benghazi that they would be there for them. the americans would not leave. we learned that it was in october of 2012 that the secretary had a planned trip to benghazi. she had planned it to libya in order to show the libyans that the americans had been there for them and that they had under her leadership led the charge. failedtell you this was american foreign-policy. failed policy from the beginning. and that is because, we have learned, in and as the president has even said the worst thing , that we did was not planning for the day after. he has indicated that the worst mistake of his presidency was not planning for the day after gadhafi fell. and so we sent american diplomats to benghazi, to libya, to a failed state. and what they were most concerned about at the beginning of going into libya was making

sure that it wasn't a failed state. and what is it today? a terrorist safe haven. isis, al qaeda. militias are there controlling the resources of oil. it is failed policy. we failed the american people. i want to close by making sure that people realize that we said we would try to make sure this didn't happen in the future. so not only did this committee work hard to uncover facts and truths and to put light on the truths, but we have pages of recommendations. many pages of recommendations. and i would encourage you to look at the recommendations. just a couple recommendations that are so critical is that our government agencies and the leaders of the agencies had not planned for an attack like this. cia, defense department, state department -- they have not been

prepared and no plans were in place to execute something like this on of all days -- september 11, even though the president had called a meeting of top government officials asking if we were ready for september 11. and while leaders said the ready, we were not ready. we were not prepared to respond. we also learned that political operatives got involved in messaging after this incident occurred. that should not be happening. internal and public government communications should not be taking place. the government should be telling the people the truth, not trying to put a political spin.

have many recommendations that we hope and will encourage members of congress and administration's to look at, to change policies and laws, to find funding mechanisms to make sure that our people are protected in the future. and with that, i yield back. >> if you have questions, please identify yourself, the entity with whom you work and who the question is directed to. >> the democrats on your committee say that you put out a lot of new details but that they don't really change the fundamental understanding. and a lot of those themes that you discussed have been known for years. at the end of the day, was this worth taxpayer dollars and your time? >> it is difficult with where i should begin with the foundation of your question. who says that stuff was new? nobody has ever reported that nothing was headed to benghazi. that not a single wheel was headed towards libya. god knows nobody has ever reported who ever evacuated our folks.

you may have reported that sec. clinton was headed back to libya in october but you did not have the corroboration of the e-mails and you did not know about the memo. you did not know about any of the e-mails from sidney blumenthal to whomever he was e-mailing. you did not know that to a single u.s. military asset did not meet a single designated military timeline. that for a second. the world's most powerful a singledid not meet solitary self-imposed timeline. so, all of that is new. mefor the democrats coloring shocked and that they are critical of the report. all five of them voted not to form the committee. they threatened not to produce spate and for the most part,

they did not. and they have been serial leakers of information. they did not. and they they have been beakers missed a good opportunity. if you have had a chance to read the report but if you do, their report mentions her name far more times than ours does. you can direct those questions to elijah and the rest of them. i am actually proud of what we found and i think it is new. >> are you saying the military could have saved those people and done more? >> clearly you couldn't have saved two of them because they were dead within 15 minutes of the fire starting. there were three assets that made it there. the group from tripoli that deployed itself, an unarmed drone that was elsewhere in position over the facility and another unarmed drone, the evidence is split on whether or not it could have been armed. it got there before the border attack.

so -- i don't know. i'm not going to make a reckless allegation that their lives could have been saved but that it will tell you is that if it had happened at 7:15 or 9:15, or 11:15, the result would have been the same. nothing was coming to benghazi. i think that is a fundamentally an question to ask. there is in e-mail that sticks out in my mind right now. takeout from the white house meeting, which no one reported on it. that, the takeouts from to our white house meeting, in addition to the five action considerthe video, this. the video had been out for a while. it was not new. cairo had happened.

right? cairo happened before benghazi. so if you were concerned about this video, you have done up slowly nothing after you find out the video was going to be disseminated. you did absolutely nothing after cairo happened. are you with me? cairo had happened and you have not changed one iota of your military decision. they yet, when the attack and benghazi happen, which is unconnected to the video, the 2% of your action items coming out are related to the video. >> [indiscernible] six days before the election, when we talk to members of the committee and read through the report, there are different lanes that deal with secretary clinton, the defense and so on. there are folks who read this and say this is a ploy to get hillary clinton before the election and convention.

regardless of what is in the report, how do you deflect that? you said, well this demonstrates in competence at the highest level, how do you not get that perceived as it -- senator trey gowdy: read the report for yourself. read it for yourself. if you read this report and you about oneat it is person incentive for people, then i have nothing to say that can dissuade you. there's no amount of fact that havinging this from you your previous conviction. the democratic mantra all along is that there was no new information. so now their position is -- it doesn't fundamentally change the way we view benghazi. if the fact that no asset was

ever headed towards the place that actually had a crisis, this e-mail that we need to plan in case a crisis emerges, this is what came out of the civics. we need to have a plan in case a crisis expands and a real threat emerges. what the hell was going on and benghazi? was that not a real crisis? was that not a real threat that emerged? i cannot do a thing to affect what elijah thinks. he is not my audience. my audience is reasonable americans who want to know what happened to their fellow citizens. >> you just had someone quoting hillary is saying, what difference does it make? morallyues that she was reprehensible. senator trey gowdy: i do not think you will see any of that

in the report. azad in the report? you are going to write a story about your take away from the report. i stand on my report. half of the citizens, you read the report. you will not see any of those quotes in the report. is hillary clinton's leadership morally reprehensible? >> in yes. it is. let me be clear. i remember the day. none of us volunteered for this assignment i can assure you. we were all asked to undertake this mission. we looked each other in the eye and said, when this day comes we want to be able to tell each other that we worked our tails off. we worked our tails off to develop every fact we could. to tell the american people everything we could possibly glean. we have been instructed every step along the way in that effort. including the democrats are told

us to read transcripts, to look for witnesses, to ask questions. this is the first congressional -- this is not the first congressional inquiry in the history of america. i do you to find another congressional inquiry where one party behaved in a way that was so deeply instructive to getting the american people the facts that the needed. with respect to my statements about secretary clinton, i believe them in my heart. we felt that we had delivered an important work in the committee's tally of the information that was available. we also felt that we had to ask everyone of you to develop your conclusions. i have been knee-deep in this for over two years. so has represented them jordan, on previous committees as well. and we feel like it is incredibly important to highlight the conclusions that we draw from the facts. read the facts, read the report. i think you will see that the conclusions we draw our real and accurate and fair. >> the flip side of that could

be that since you chose not to draw conclusions, does that suggest that you do not have the goods on placing the blame on any member of the administration? particularly hillary clinton? representative trey gowdy: shockingly, that was not what i was asked to do. the house asked me to do. look at the resolution. he resolution doesn't mention secretary clinton. speaker boehner or speaker ryan have never asked me to do anything about 2016 politics. speaker boehner asked me to find out what happened to our fellow citizens and i believe that is what i have done. you are welcome to read the report, i know you will. if you at the end of the report that you can conclude it is about one person, i will be shocked. >> i'm asking the opposite question. you believe that after doing this for two years and spending millions of dollars, do you believe that based on this that the american people should look at this and see that this woman -- wants to be president has

representative trey gowdy: i believe the american people should look at it. to look at it because fellow americans died and trusted her to save those americans. what conclusions they draw after reading it is up to them. i wrote the report that i think is centered on the facts. i have a background of who, what, when, where. i don't have a background on the why. my job is to report facts and that is what i have done. you can drop whatever conclusions you want to draw. >> who was tapping the brakes on the military response? my second question is -- what did you learn about the covert weapons operations? >> we asked questions about a covert weapons operation and we made some progress.

the lawyers intervened when we were beginning to make a lot of progress. and among the questions i asked the president included that one specifically. i have not heard back from him yet. i have heard from his lawyer and i am not holding my breath that i will get an answer for that. i think it is important because the house asked us if there were policies that could have led to the attack. so i think it is important to ask the questions, but that is not the focus of our committee. the brakes onping the military? representative trey gowdy: is a certainreak phrase. i remember a lot of raised eyebrows as if all of the right questions had been asked the first time. i think the military leaders would tell you what i said in my opening. they believed an evacuation was imminent.

when you question number why they believed an evacuation was imminent, the answers do not withstand even the mildest level of scrutiny. you had real live witnesses who can tell you what is going on. if you think the fighting has subsided, why don't you talk to be really live witnesses are being shot at? if you really believe an evacuation is imminent, at some level you have to ask, how will that evacuation be affect you when you? because you do not have the proper vehicles to take them from the annex to the benghazi airport. and the only plane you have is one that you privately commission, not even an american aircraft and you have no idea whether it will have -- hold everybody. so how are you going to evacuate in the midst of a firefight? even knowl did not our guys were ambhed from the compound to the annex. he did not even know. so for everyone who wanted to know why we wanted to talk to general ham again, i thought it

would be nice for him to be having access to all of the facts because he did not have them the 90 may be decisions. >> some have described this as a perfect storm of bureaucratic inertia. is there one entity or person to whom you lay most of the blame after the analysis? >> that is in the eyes of the fellow citizens. i think there is enough to go around, just like there is enough urgency and ingenuity. and valor. that really is my take away. maybe it because i have talked to the families of the four. the lasthe families in couple days. but when you do what i used to do for a living, you ask the families, what is it you would like to see done. i am at peace that we did exactly for the families what we said we would do. it took a little longer, but we did what we said we would do. i wanted to be able to tell the

widow the truth about the military response. i wanted to be able to tell sean smith's mother about the security leading up to it. and i am at peace that we have more information than the other committees had and we could've had more if we had more cooperation from the other side. >> along the lines, put aside the attack itself and what happened that particular night -- have you been able to, in some way, some abstract way, getting to ambassador stevens' mind regarding the american presence in libya? how he wanted that conflict to end? americanhe wanted the president to not appear militarized? senator trey gowdy: let's be clear about something. peopletevens loved the of libya and in particular he

loved the people in benghazi. in heroism he showed going as the envoy, and what he had to do as the and -- as the envoy, before he was ambassador, is a level of valor and heroism and commitment to this country. if you do not read the report for any other reason, read it for what he and jordan during 2011. he got there september 10 and withed meeting intelligence officials about the state of security in libya. he began to postpone subsequent readings because of what he was hearing. he knew it wasn't great. he had no idea how bad it was. so he began to postpone the next meeting is ready, and here is our ambassador saying, i am not through getting my debriefing. and then he moves the off-campus meetings and engagements on campus. and then you see his diary entry. you see has diary entry on september 11.

entry.s diary read the e-mail he sent to the diplomats. no, we do not know exactly what was on chris stevens mine. benghazi had deteriorated anyway he did not even suspect and security was on a his mind. >> but he wanted the appearance of the united states presence there was not solidified -- senator trey gowdy: i think he wanted to stay alive more than anything else. with all due respect, he wanted to stay alive. and if that means a slightly higher footprint, then that maybe means there has to be experts or supervisors who say, we appreciate your valor and we are going to give you the security u.s. for originally. >> people have asked a version of this question in different ways --

americans who have viewed these events and investigation through certain lenses will continue, despite the report, there are bumper stickers and t-shirts all over this country that say " hillary clinton lied, people died." is that true? gowdy: you have never seen me wearing the t-shirt, i don't have the bumper sticker, and you will never hear me say it. have you read it? i am asking you to read it. i am asking you to read it. i am not going to tell you what to be on the lookout for. i am going to tell you there is new information and it fundamentally changes the way i and it before, during, after. who wasn't, then rose, who said "reporters literally know nothing." i actually trust you to read the

report for yourself. you are going to write about it. >> but you are the expert. >> i want youink? to contrast the information and the evidence that was available. look at the full body of evidence that was available. and then book at what was said. and then you draw your own conclusion about whether you on thee best views based evidence and information available. it is one thing to say the evidence did not exist. it existed, we found them. we found the agents. there are conversations that were ongoing throughout the night. she actually talked to greg hicks. so that argument actually works both ways. if there is information, she was definitive in certain statements she made two people privately. there was no ambiguity. it wasn't like, i can't answer that question mr. egyptian

political leader, i don't know. she was definitive. it was just in a public statements to us that there was less definitive does. so you will have to decide that for yourself. >> i will pick up where the chairman was. look at the statements made privately. decide for yourself. what the administration said privately and what they said publicly. someone said the intelligence analysis changed over time. that is true. but the statement didn't. they were consistent publicly. the video inspired protests -- privately, terrorist attack. that continues. look for yourself. you candy side. but when you look at a private statements compared to what they told the american people, a start contrast. a dramatic difference. look for yourself. >> let me just say that to this

report has never been about one person. it has been about the four americans and what the other americans inside libya did to save their colleagues. the media has made this -- wants to make this -- about one person. the democrats want to make this about one person. that has never been our intention. but we have enough facts in the report that i think every american should make their own mind up. if you talk to tie woods -- talk to tyrone woods' dad, he will have a different opinion reading the report from what the secretary told him and what the facts say in the report. sean smith's mother will probably have the same different way of looking at the report. so each american needs to look at this report. it's lengthy but it had to be

lengthy so that we could spell out what the truth is and what these new facts have given like to. this report -- i promise you, the chairman has made it clear that each and every one of us -- it was not about one single person. in fact, the report, i think, we reached our goal when we came up with a different recommendation that needs to be done to prevent this from happening again. and i think the detail that we went into makes these recommendations all the more important. and hopefully the speaker and other people will take them and do something with them. because i do think they lay out a means of us not getting in this same situation. i would like to comment too, that when these americans

arrived from tripoli to the airport in benghazi, they were there for three hours. i don't think we knew if we had another hostage situation at the airport or not. but as it has been said i other members, not one wheel had been up, not one person headed to benghazi, and we didn't really know how those guys -- if they were even going to be able to leave the airport. so there were many other situations that should have been talked about at different times in washington that were never talked about. do we have another hostage situation? is the ambassador hostage? are these military guys -- are they being held hostage? we didn't see any evidence of that ever being talked about while these guys are standing there, trying to talk their way off the airport to help their friends.

>> i haven't gotten the question yet although this last one may be about the latter part of section two, the post-attack communication. i want to have it for just a minute from the person you are asking me about to the person the administration actually put on the sunday talk shows. we talked to her and i appreciate the struggles and making her available. she was the third choice. i thought she was inadequately prepared and that is what happens when you are inadequately prepared. you say a series of demonstrably false things on national television. including about the fbi, including conflating the video with the demonstration, including saying that a handful .f the extremists hijacked

this stuff is just made up. it would be one thing if it was in the talking points. it would be one thing if it were in their and they got a wrong therefore she got it wrong. it is not even in there. it is just made up. that is not the person i have been asked about, but this is the person who made most of the public pronouncements on that sunday after the attacks. >> to get back to the civics of the team. do you actually name in the report that officers? do you name names in those details? trey gowdy: do we named the details or the names? we tried to honor dod's request

you arepect to high up before your name is used publicly as opposed to using the names of people who -- we try to be sensitive to that. frankly, cross all agencies i do not think you will see names. you will see titles. you will be able to read transcripts of we can get the transcripts clear. you will be around to see the underlying data, that to me is what is important. you may read an e-mail from ambassador nall, you may read it differently then i read it. you may read it differently. i don't know heidi could, but you might. i want you to be able to read the e-mail. i would i do not want you did take -- i do not want you to take my word for it. reading yourself. i do not think this is stonewalling you all.

i think you all know, all of the transcripts i can make publicly available will be made publicly available. must be publicly available, you can look at the data and decide whether or not the report fairly addresses the testimony. if you read the transcript and you think that is in context or that is not in context, i do not want you take my word for it. theharles woods has asked president publicly if the droning captured the death of his son. do you know if the drum captured that and it was fed to the white house? senator trey gowdy: i know the drone was in europe the time of the attacks. i do not know the amount of the granularity. point.se in interesting

when you meet with the family is privately, you hear questions you would never hear in a less areerence was stop they incredibly personal questions these are for fellow americans to us, their sons and husbands and brothers to the people that we talked to at the very beginning. and the last group i talk to. the families. the questions are very different. and even though it is not in the report, i am happy we were able to answer some of the intimate questions that were asked by the family of those killed. >> thank you.

>> i am pleased that the senate as a body has come to this conclusion. in the senate will undoubtedly provide citizens with greater access and exposure to the actions of this body. americans top all be better informed of the problems and dishes which face this nation on a day by day basis. >> during the election i had the occasion of meeting a woman who had supported me and my campaign and she decided to come and shake my hand and take a photograph. a wonderful woman. anything.t asking for i was very grateful she took the time to come by. it was in an exceptional moment except for the affections morning 1894. her name is margaret lewis. an african-american woman who

had been born in louisiana. born in the shadow of slavery. a time when lynchings were commonplace. ported at a time when african-americans and women .ould not vote >> took our country from the time of its founding until the mid-1980's to build up a national debt of $850 billion which was the size of the so-called stimulus package when it came over here. so we are talking about real borrowed money. announcer: 30 years of the coverage of the u.s. senate on c-span2. areuncer: this morning, we back in the house of the british comments for the weekly prime minister's question time. this comes less man one week after the referendum decision to leave the union. the resignation of david cameron and one day after jeremy corbyn

lost a no-confidence vote. live at 7:00 eastern on c-span. >> vice president joe biden speaks to a cancer summit at howard university in washington. be mc by is going to comedian carol burnett who lost her daughter to cancer in 2002. see that live beginning at 9:00 a.m. eastern on c-span3. on july 1, 1976, this was and -- the smithsonian air space museum opened the store's in public with gerald ford at the helm. tv's liveistory coverage starts at 6:00 p.m. on c-span3. museum and show one-of-a-kind space artifacts including the spirit of st. louis and the apollo lunar

module. learn more as we talked to the , the curator, and the chair of the museums history department. join the discussion. we will take your calls, e-mails, and tweets. live.th university: history c-span tv. >> live today on c-span, washington journal is next. public health officials on preparing for potential seek the -- zika virus threats. then, talks about national security threats. then the president takes part in a joint news conference with coming up, "washington

journal" looks at immigration policy. the supreme court order striking down presidential policy. and get your perspective. ♪ good morning on this wednesday, june 29, a day after airport in attack at turkey. the turkish prime minister believes the islamic state could be behind the attack. turkey is a key partner in the u.s. led partnership against isis. it shares a long and open border with syria and iraq. we will begin with reactions to this attack. republicans (202) 748-8001. democrats (202) 748-8000.