stuart: don't do that. i'm sure you'll be okay. later on this afternoon. our time is up, i think we're going to go back to those hearings. neil cavuto standing by, take it away, neil. neil: thank you very much, stuart. as stuart indicated here, if the markets are worried about what is happening in washington right now with these benghazi hearings and we're just a fraction way through the markets have a funny way of showing it. they're not laying pay glove on her that seems to be the impression here so your knee-jerk reaction would be, well why is the dow pouncing on that? there no surprises here, it is responding to some better than expected earnings news we had out today and good news on home sales some very good news on the jobless claims front on the notion that the economy is chugging along just fine. now, you might interpret a performance on the part of the republicans that is very analogous to not laying a glove on the former secretary of state as being something wall street would not like to hear especially given her ideas as a presidential candidate to rain in on

wall street. but i would like to stress the real battle could be coming later in the day in the hope of the part of the republican questioners to conflate issues that hillary clinton has conflated, benghazi and the e-mails, it is the e-mails that are left out of these hearings that will pop up later in the afternoon. and it is those e-mails that republicans hope to trip her up. one of the claims that they've ceased on very early on, and we're going to get into here, this notion that not for republicans and their budget can you get that maybe the benghazi situation never would have been the problem it was. now, that has been a situation as official, harley lam who dismissed that argument telling the same committee a few years ago that budgetary issues had nothing to do with leaving the ambassador and the others who were killed vulnerable to attacks. furthermore you have essentially the cfo of our

security forces in the region echoing much the same. but it is -- he said/she said-type thing here. and obviously hillary clinton is trying to deposit this a democratic defense in the wake is she succeeding? no one has really laid a glove on her outside of some of those inconsistencies. it is still early. ten minutes worth of questioning. it was kind of end around christmas time. >> 10-12 minutes. these sessions run longer than that. he takes a couple minutes to get the next person. letting hillary clinton finished her answers. very likely that this could and

eight, nine, 10:00 o'clock tonight. this is going to be a long, long hearing. they have not gotten very deeply. it did invoke the e-mail issue. it has come up a couple of times already. neil: the e-mail issue has been important. tripping her up. >> yes. you look at some of the people that were on the committee. a former prosecutor. they have these backgrounds. eli jacques cummings. an attorney. a full defense of hillary clinton today. i thought that it was noteworthy a few seconds ago.

house leader nancy pelosi asked whether democrats may fail from bill from the committee after this hearing. they obviously do not like what the republicans are doing. they have to see how the hearing goes. nancy poulos he has this committee going on. how much longer will this go? we may see some closure in the next few months because of this. a report to close to the presidential election, it looks completely political for the republicans. they have to get her this. they wanted hillary clinton to come earlier. they wanted to get this off the docket in 2015 so they can get

onto 2016. you know what happens in 2016. neil: yes. chad, the best. thank you very much, my friend. hillary clinton has accepted responsibility for security lapses. there is a huge legal difference here. take responsibility. do not take the blame that comes with that responsibility. you may seem to be parsing very small details here. wendy patrick said it is an important distinction. is she succeeding and that thus far? >> absolutely, neil. unlike a real trial where you can run out of the shoe with a singer question, it is almost as if they are warming up the hot seat.

she got an opportunity to talk about responsibility. whether or not she will be continually railed remains to be seen. we are hoping as the day progresses that we will start seeing some fireworks. she will be giving us a lot of quotable in the way that she answers them. what she will say is whether or not she is willing to take that blame and what that means for her and the american people. >> you listen how she testified a few years back. the famous remark was what difference does it make. versus today look, we should have done more. we did not do more. there was nothing to indicate that we should have done more. it may come later today.

she most certainly was aware. i get so many e-mails. so many of these have the state department stance. there is no way you could assume i would be able to lean from those actionable intelligence. she kept coming back to whether i had reasons or grounds to act. she is saying that she did not have it. get those e-mails have to prove it? >> the answer is a little bit of both. it is true that she has probably inundated with e-mail. important issues regarding the question she is being asked today. you will remember the ones that are deeply concerning. you have to remain credibility.

she simply cannot hide behind my inboxes to full i cannot remember one way or the other. your point about inconsistency is huge. it is going to be interesting to see if she acknowledges inconsistency. >> all right. i am no lawyer. we will see. it could trip up later today. >> we are all waiting for that. neil: thank you very much. the minority member of this committee, it gets back to the front of their argument. it is time for republicans to win this taxpayer funding fishing expedition. chuck, as you probably heard

there is talk that after this hearing today that committee i think that we -- >> 's that is political. they will take that thing back and forth. it was brought up earlier in your discussion. the democrats just walk off the committee. that is their call. it is a political decision. what i want to know is, why were there not procedures in place people on alert knowing that a front was about to move through. if there was whether that would potentially affect the airplanes that were on the ramp for the ship we made sure that we put heavy tiedown chains. as there was a front coming here and there could be an issue. there was a front coming. everybody knew it.

there could have bid a wind gust that damaged something. that wind gusts came when our facilities were attacked in benghazi. a unit commanding officer would have been relieved. there is no accountability. you were talking with the attorney about responsibility and blame. responsibility is nothing if there is no accountability to go with it. >> you do not take the blame there. there is a very big total call difference. there is this notion that the e-mail may reveal a chain of warnings. there is no additional proof of this yet. there was a call for actionable -- that was ignored at the state department. it may have been lower level.

she said she was getting information from lower levels. the actual intelligence. we are hearing it often. it was not there. the easiest retrospect to put it there. portrayed by democrats that you are chasing the wrong story. e-mails are there. other information is there. the dates themselves are there. they should have been on the highest alert. >> there is a deep motivational poster. none of us are as stupid as all of us are: italy. here is the problem with large organizations. you have committees. you have these different groups that meet. it is so seldom anymore. there is no individual that is held accountable. wait a minute.

no. i think that that is the biggest frustration did i mean our government. the organization that consistently and pulled, comes out. congress is on the bottom. the u.s. military is on the top here it there is accountability. if you are the captain of a ship you could be asleep into her racket does not matter. there is no accountability and our government. neil: thank you. these hearings are going to continue. just using basic math. obviously, a couple minutes. she has a right to respond within the next five minutes. you can crunch these numbers. this will be going on well into the evening. four republicans there on defense, we are monitoring this.

this has been deemed in the eyes of hillary clinton and the democrats that this is all politically motivated. the e-mail account server account, benghazi, they are all part of a political witchhunt. the chairman of this committee has said that is not the case. let me assure you it is not. this investigation into about four people who were killed representing our country on foreign soil. is that getting through? tri-county insisting that it is not political. is he a republican? you kind of agree with that. if you are democrat, you kind of disagree with that. about half of them say maybe not. what has to be done as this day

in sue's? don't you guys have to connect more than you are connecting now? >> i actually think that they are very well connected. acknowledging new information. >> when is the new information coming? >> seven different witnesses. they have had tons of different documentations. over 1300 pages. >> absolutely. from time and time again. whether it be "fast and furious," the irs or benghazi. that is the key here. proper timing of documentation. secretary of state.

what happens in 2012? they should have phrased it. no different than a position with a mass casualty. you treat those places around the world first and foremost. >> maybe you should be asking questions in there. i have not been impressed. i thought the big one they just sort of let go. we may have had the protection of ambassador stephens and these other men. reputed by none less than the states department charlie lynn. it was dismissed by the defense department. it was defensed by the key financial officer. it was dismissed by the security report which it self said unto terry issues had nothing to do

with what was going on there. that went unchecked. almost ignored. i'm thinking, if you cannot get someone on that then republicans a lot of folks wonder why we are here watching. >> as you notice, trey is going last. >> living in a short attention society. you get your best stuff up front. you do not drag it out until the end. >> manipulating the witness two. you give them a chance to hang themselves. >> do you think that she has hung herself in any way? >> i think that she has set herself up for accountability. posturing her body language. you know this body language.

neil: no body language. panic. >> we know that, neil. we actually take those into consideration. >> we intentionally stayed away. you know, that comes off that way. america does not like that. from that standpoint, cummings came to the microphone she lightened up and smiled. that is actually a very good observation. >> absolutely.

very good. now to our former u.s. ambassador of the united nations. he joins us on the phone. the knee-jerk reaction could be wrong. it may conflict with statements that she has made. no lawyer. challenging her on glaring the falsities. bringing us to the events of benghazi. very rarely challenge. very rarely brought up by the media. what do you make of this? >> from my own examination people who made decisions were certainly influenced by what i would call handling their budgets with care. decisions in the course of

leading up to the attack. requests for security support that our group felt were justified and should have been met. neil: even though it has been refuted by the states department's chief financial officer? i am sure that there may have been others that raise that. is there enough evidence to support the fact that there were requests coming from that? that office in that region for more security personnel that was cut out by congress. >> providing a certain amount of money. neil: wanted that mean the state department not allocating this. >> in part it is.

you know this as well as anybody else. they have the absolute certainty to spend any amount of money that they needed for security. they were all given a budget. they were given what the congress appropriated. that is the reality. >> ambassador, you can help me with this. chris stevens did not have her personal e-mail. whether that comes up in some of this release she keeps the fact that anything that comes through her office get the state department stay up. it just means that the state department has received in e-mail. >> i think that you are confusing telegrams with e-mail. this came in connection with telegrams. the state department telegram

existed and signed out by the secretary of state. they are sent to the secretary of state overseas. clinton as secretary. up until secretary powell, the acting secretary of state when the secretariat was away was the signer of the telegrams so other people's names appeared. always had the secretary's name. appointing $0.25 to do this job or recommended that we bought russia. neil: let me ask you a dumb question. even though it goes out with the

secretary and whatever, it is also fair to say it is unlikely. >> it is unlikely that she even read a small percentage of it. i headed that staffer. designed for the most important telegrams for the secretary. and going and outgoing. there is a huge haul you. that is a system that is fair. people recover from somewhere. approved by secretary clinton. neil: that answers a couple questions. when we later on get some of his personal e-mail detail does it come from ambassador stephens? it was communicated. what individuals we do not

know. the critics will say you had warnings from no less than the ambassador. weeks prior for escalating tensions. at what point do they alert the secretary of state's of any point? how far does that get the boss' attention if they are being constantly sent from and ambassador's office. is this a region of the world especially closing in on the 9/11 anniversary? >> the people who are in charge of the regional bureau, the assistant secretary's office for diplomatic security are the first responders, so to speak when that goes up.

they are the ones that have the primary responsibility of leading the secretary know. it then goes to the executive secretary to the secretary. they are also monitoring things. they have in charge of the operations center. a 247 operations enterprise. plus the fact that that is linked to all the operations centers of the other national security agencies around washington frequently have conference calls to say that this is happening. are you alerting and what are you doing about it. that is a pretty well-established system. these things happen probably and eight cataclysmic and direct way. when you referred to the creepy one. our report noted i think something over 20 or 30 events

between april and september that should have triggered that. we did not feel that they had. we felt that that was a fault of the system. they were not healing with benghazi as one of those high probes. we made a recommendation that a new position be established to follow that path that particular responsibility. neil: it may be very simplistic on my part, but what harm would there have been in hillary clinton or anyone. in retrospect, we should have been more aware. we should have beefed up security. looking at what we know in the anniversary weekly approaching we should have been more on top of that, but we were not and we screwed up. >> that is what we said in our report to her. she accepted every one of our

recommendations. she also said that she took responsibility. >> i know that we get nuance about this. it comes to the core of leadership. she is running for president of the united states. my organization he said julie failed me. that intelligence issue. has she ever just come out or do you think per her report she should have just initiated a statement. i did not move quickly enough. and retrospect, that was my failure. >> the accountability review board am both an legislation and in the material where they set this up, not permissible for you, the accountability review board, to accept that as the end result of your recommendations.

the mere acceptance of responsibility by the cabinet office as a result of there being a charge by the cabinet department. you must go where the decisions were made. deeply went to where those decisions were reviewed. the people who were supervising the ones who made those two stations. neil: what you are saying here when this is all said and done, a witchhunt. >> that is your conclusion. >> no. no. >> that is my job. neil: -- >> if it? like a duck and it looks like a duck's and flies like a duck, then it must be a duck. what do you think is going on in this business? >> i have no idea.

>> if you have no idea, then you should not be on the radio my friend. >> well it is tv. ambassador thank you. it comes down very, very simply. are we getting hillary clinton on an issue that resonates? no at this point it does not. looking at the markets right now, it does not either. brian webster has been watching the marke of this. obviously, this is not a factor. there is a disconnect on this for me as well. if you look at hillary clinton and what she has said, do you find in their response she has been deemed to be doing a good job, this is improving her presidential prospect as we speak.

>> yes. neil: she is closer to being the president that they feared she would become. >> i think that you are right. i am not a duck. neil: i think that i know what he was getting at. [laughter] >> i agree. we have a great existing home sales data today. we now have the lowest four-week moving average since 1973. by the way isn't that kind of interesting. i kind of think of three events like this. nixon, ollie north he was not running for president and now hillary clinton. what i believe the market is responding to here is not necessarily the political

environment. it is the economical environment. the market was going up. nixon, we were having trouble. the economy was in real trouble. we call it the plow horse economy. it is not a booming economy. what we have clearly seen in the last couple of weeks is a turnaround in the data. housing is up. jobs are up. china's manufacturing number. >> i am not trying to connect or complete. maybe down the road or maybe in the general election if she were to be the democratic nominee calling out wall street, that may be coming back to bite her. maybe not. >> i think that you are right about this. i am not pushing back against your question.

it is very, very early. we know she is running way left because of a little bit more. because of bernie sanders. most people, at least that i talk to, believe that she welcome back to the center. i am not saying that i would vote for her or that i would believe that, but there is a big feeling amongst people that i know on wall street who think that she will address corporate tax rates the second highest in the world. she will actually face some of the entitlement issues that we have. i am not trying to claim that she is like her husband where he ran a center right democratic government but the bottom line is that she is running way left right now. most people expect her to come back to the center. this is clearly better than

bernie sanders would be for the market. if you want to look for a political impetus today it means bernie sanders has less of a say in this presidential campaign. neil: thank you for indulging my crazy thoughts. to this point we are up 300 points. some better than expected earnings numbers. some robust holiday forecast out there. the irony would be the closer hillary clinton gets to an election would that still hold? she is unstoppable in these remarks thus far. we have lieutenant colonel tony schafer joining us here. colonel, you are big east with this a lot of the stories --

>> i do not know what planet he is from, but is not areas. there are legitimate questions about who what, when, where how. some of those have to do with the prior clear identification. i just heard testimony about she has no idea. i do not know who you are talking about on the ground there. the basic mission that was in that godsey trying to do the work of the state department. they are behind the scenes trying to do any number of things. taking out bad guys. you had other guys trying to move arms. it was all very complex. the idea that she did not know what was going on speaks volumes. she really had no idea or she is trying to say now because it looks really bad.

that is what we need to get to the bottom of here. >> taking responsibility and taking the blame. there is a big legal difference there. i am just this idiotic duck. if you want to be president of the united states she is a very good lawyer. she has found a way to out lawyer and out legally respond to many of the questions. is she putting this issue to bed? some of the democrats on this committee are seriously entertaining leaving this and not doing any more benghazi investigations because they have gotten too long, they have got into sordid. in their eyes, political. >> let's be very clear on this. the fact that she attempted to

avoid oversight legal oversight by creating her own server and having this private e-mail system has everything i need to know about what the intention was. then you take the next step of what happened on benghazi, the day of attacks. you look at names. they are not saying, on this day, i should have done this. i take full accountability. i did not know about that memo. i trust the candidate to do xyz. he did not. all she does is say i was not there. i did not see it. i was not knowledgeable. it does not make sense. especially if you want to be president. the most massive military. the most massive of economy in the world. to me, that is what we should be looking at here. that is not political.

neil: kernel you feel very passionate about this issue. you are in a minority. the top issues in benghazi does not come up. i do not know what the term is running out the clock on this. >> i think that that is really part of the plan here. this is what is going to be key. what lingers? she may be able to dodge every bullet. that may be correct. what needs to be said or focused on is what she does not say. okay. who does take responsibility. sometimes there may be some good coming out of identifying who. maybe they will be the one speaking out in the spring. it could be a real issue this spring. people will be thrown under the bus here.

they will want to have a voice for themselves come the spring. neil: thank you very, very much. we are getting e-mails. neil the ambassador school do and basic human nature. it is very clear cavuto, you read a prompter for a living. maybe you are on educational ball. that is not a word. all of that after this. ♪

neil: watching the dow soaring on a day we have some good economic news. we also have some good news on jobless claims. maybe sales like amazon. we are learning one drama.

benghazi. separately what is going on in the speaker race. nancy pelosi has already commented that paul ryan will be the next speaker of the house. very close to getting that job. my friend scott mcnealy. getting a birds eye view from silicon valley. first off on the hearings, she seems to be holding her own. what do you think? >> i think that some voters will all decide here it running a large bureaucracy. can she do that for the u.s. government. issue going to make good judgments about where to put servers. i just go back to the nixon era. just kind of interesting.

considered a you are out of here kind of an issue. we are a lot more forgiving these days. neil: that is a very good point. apparently they are planning on later today, scott. always in the eyes of the mainstream media. hillary clinton not comparing the two. then what? then what happens? it is back to the economy back to the world government. what? >> time for the old days in the silicon valley. we did not play crony statism. i do not call it crony capitalism. our political vote.

protecting liberty pursuit to happiness. allowing everyone an opportunity to explore the american dream. political investment strategies. they are way more sophisticated. let me get your take on paul ryan becoming the next speaker of the house. he has already gone into saying i do not want this job. if you want me for this job here are my conditions. do not expect me to go flying around and doing a bunch of fundraisers for you. i will come in not doing as much work as my predecessor. he has already said that. if an executive came to you or a candidate came to you limiting what he was going to do or redefining a job for which you are considering at first what would you say?

>> i always try to tissues leaders that are very gallant in. they were not 12 years old wanting to be president of the united states. they understand that it is really really hard. you kind of want to grab people that are capable but reluctant. there are lots of folks that do not work as many hours as i do. i was always jealous of larry ellison being able to win the america's cup. effective in different ways. >> you are saying that you liked all that. >> i just do not think that it is a winnable job. we have moved so far where government has become such a dominant player. i do not think that we are you know as focused on the rule of law as he used to be in the old days.

i guess that statistic that drives me crazy is when i grow up and detroit it was the largest per capita income in the area. lobbyists, lawyers and crony status have taken over our economy. >> it looks like we're going to do stat satellite. thank you very much. first on the hillary clinton and so far with standing this just fine. >> from what i have seen, she is kind of running circles around everyone. no one has really been able to pin her down. she mentioned that ambassador stevens didn't have her e-mail. it was kind of a powerful

moment. other than that, she has schooled a lot of the people on the committee. neil: whatever these allegations. i guess i cannot consider -- it is her week. this is her week. everything that has happened since joe biden getting out of the race. >> it does not take away from the fact that 60% of americans think that hillary clinton is a liar. she has a trail of ms. doings for many many years. getting away with a lot of things. neil: i understand what you are

saying. sometimes while those attributes are important when push comes to shove they look at other issues. >> a do, absolutely. she can still be elected president. even if she does well with the wind at her back right now the reality is that will not affect the fbi's investigation into what she did with e-mail sent classified information. she may have the sales that her back but that ba may be able to puncture those sales at any moment. neil: that is the one thing i guess we do not know. joe biden not announcing that he had a hunch. he will not be indicted. no one will come down on her.

>> i did not. joe biden endorsing hillary clinton. we will have to see what happens with this investigation. we do want the answers. we will wait and see what calms out of today's hearing as well. we have four brave americans who have lost their lives and their families are suffering from this. i really hope that she is held accountable for what happened. neil: are you surprised this issue as gripping and emotionally wrenching as it is, does a prejudiced or in the top 10 concerns of voters, polls this election year? >> i do not actually. i am not surprised that this issue does not resume. a lot of voters the benefit of the dow no one actually believes that hillary clinton wanted those people to die. the real issue is to lead up to what happened in benghazi.

no one actually believes that she intentionally wanted to see these people die. the american people are forgiving, even if she had a failure at the leadership by not securing that leadership. >> sure. i agree with you. this happened under her watch. what is really disappointing is how she blamed a you tube video. that is just really a responsible of her. she should have been a much bigger person than that. neil: we're still we are still getting an enormous amount of e-mail response. not a big fan. allie writes, neil, called you for the idiot we have long thought you to be. peter writes, the ambassador was rude to you. why and how could he possibly think that your show is a radio

show. >> we will have more after this. ♪ bp

neil: the dow may be up 300-point today. dow pharmaceuticals is not going along for the ride. down about 40%. largely a firm that cooked its books. another enron. ships off to unknown entities. the company came out with things that are not true. brought a large amount of additional shares. to you first. this company cannot get out of

its way. what is happening? >> this boils down to what some would call an unseemly business of buying. drugmaker after drugmaker. it dramatically raises the prices. quite frankly it was asking for scrutiny. neil: and from hillary clinton. >> absolutely. that is what has hit valiant shares again even harder in recent weeks. the stock down about 60%. you had the then ceo of allergan. complaining or campaigning against valley in campaigning practice. another short seller. talking about not liking role of

businesses. companies that come out and buy by company after company after a company. there was a subpoena from democrats on capitol hill. this was in the making for months if not longer than that. >> what do you make of this? this whole set your has been a strong market rally. what happened? >> this has been a leader for several years. you see when the tide goes out what is really under the water. this is been happening for a long time. we remember enron. you could just go through a multiple list. i do not practice any more. i wrote it in my book. it is called the financial shenanigans. you can basically shift

receivables. it is just smoke and mirrors. the average investor does not know how to really look at the balance sheets. the government do. that is why some of this is being investigated. i am very careful when i investigate companies. i want to know what the subsidiaries are. i want to know how much of their sales are attributable directly to those subsidiaries. it has been happening a long time. it makes investors very leery. biotechnology stocks out there that do not even make money. i am not surprised to hear about this situation. i think that it is going to be more. >> that is the trouble. people cannot explain what it does. >> if buys companies and raises the price of their drugs. that is the business model.

in terms of biotechnology companies there are very few people that read medical trial data about cancer drugs. that does not get in the way of people buying the stocks. i do want to point out be careful. talking about enron. be careful about enron. that company went out of business and the executives went to prison. neil: guys, thank you very, very much. ♪

...

>> all right. now it's the chairman's turn. we've got trey gowdy. let's listen in. >> you had a number of them, do you recall any of them? >> i know he did work for my house. >> he worked for the clinton foundation? >> that's correct. >> he worked for media matters. >> i'm sure he did. >> he worked for correct the record. >> i'm sure he did.

>> when you were asked about sidney blumenthal. you said he was an old friend who sent you unsolicited e-mails, which you passed on in some instances because you wanted to hear from people outside of what you called the bubble. we will ignore for a second, whether or not sidney blumenthal was outside the bubble, but i 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 worked with, loved to send you political and image advice, had business interests in libya which he not only alerted you do, 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? >> 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, and some of it i did not. some of it i forwarded, some of it i did not. i did not know anything anything about any business interestsment i thought that just as i said previously, newspaper articles which he is one, a former journalist had interesting insights and so we took them on board and evaluated them and some were helpful and others were not. >> we're going to get to all the points you just made, but i want to start with 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, question mark.

what are you hearing now, question mark? got it. will follow up tomorrow, anything else to convey, question mark. 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? >> i have no idea, congressman. they started out unsolicited and some i passed on and some were not. so he continued to provide me information that was made available to him. >> i don't want to parse words and be hyper technical because it's not a huge point, but it's an important point. you didn't say they started off unsolicited unsolicited. >> well, they were unsolicited and obviously i responded to some of them--

>> anything else to convey what are you hearing now? i'm going to paris tomorrow night, will meet with tnc leaders so this and additional info useful. still don't have blackberry coverage so i had to resort to my new ipad. let me know if you received that, we'll talk about the new ipad in a little bit. here is 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? >> i said it began that way, mr. chairman and i will add that both chris stevens and gene chris found some of the information interesting far more than i could because they knew some of the characters mentioned and the kind of persons i asked to evaluate to

see if there was any useful information. >> we're going to do that. before you give mr. blumenthal too much credit, he didn't write a single one of the cables or memos. >> what? >> he didn't write one of those memos. >> he sent them to me. >> are you surprised that any one of those-- >> i don't know where he got-- >> you're sending me specific intelligence, what is your source? that seems like a pretty good question. >> i learned later that he was talking to or sharing information from former american intelligence officials. >> by the name of? who wrote those cables? >> i don't recall. i don't know, mr. chairman. >> you had this information passed on to others, but at least on one occasion you asked miss abney can you print without any identifiers. why would you want his name removed? >> 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 would be anything to it. don't the people have the right to know the stores of the information-- he wasn't, as you said the source of the information. >> you said that you didn't know that. >> no, mr. chairman, i said he didn't have the source of that information that he was getting is somewhere else. he knew others in washington. it could have been a variety of people. >> if you're going to determine credibility, don't you want to know the source? >> 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. >> well, did the president know that mr. blumenthal was advising you? >> he wasn't advising me and mr. chairman-- >> if he know that he was your most prolific e-mailer that we have found on the subjects of

libya and benghazi. >> because i didn't do most of my work on libya-- >> i'm not challenging that, i am not challanging that. documents show that he was your most prolific e-mailer on libya and benghazi and my question to you is the president, the same white house that said you can't handle him-- can't hire him, if he know that he was advising you. >> he was not advising me and i have no reason to have ever mentioned that or to know that the president knew that. >> i want to draw your attention to an e-mail about libya from mr. blumenthal to you dated april, 2011. the exhibit 67. and this is, this is informative. should we pass on in parentheticals, to the white house. >> it was important to the information.

and a lot of intelligence 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's credible, whether it can be followed up on. >> i'm going to accept the fact that you and i come from different backgrounds. i'm going to tell you that a unn un-- >> we're talking about credibility and the ability to assess who is 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're 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 is another possible explanation, it may give us a sense 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, secretary of defense.

i infer gates problem as losing an internal debate. tile, and tyler solder drummiller authored the cables you got from mr. blumenthal, tyler knows him well and says he's a mean, vicious little-- i'm not going to say the word, but he did. this is an e-mail from blumenthal to you about the president secretary of defense. and here is another one to you about the president's national security advisor, frankly, tom donlan's to reporters has inspired derigs on analysts here and abroad. and here is another one what you say is your sold 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 luke warm and self-contradicting statements have produced what is, at least for the motion, operational paralysis. 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 to use that access at least on one occasion to intervene on behalf of a business venture. do you believe that? >> you know, mr. chairman, if you don't have any friends who say unkind things privately, i congratulate you. but from my perspective-- >> i'd like to think i'd correct them. >> i don't know what this line of questioning does to help us get to the bottom of the deaths of four americans. >> i'll be happy to tell. i'll be happy to help you understand that, madam secretary. >> i want to reiterate what i said to congress woman sanchez. these were originally unsolicited, you just said perhaps the main if know the exclusive author was a former intelligence agent for our country who rose to the highest levels. 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. >> well, madam secretary, i'm out of time and we'll pick this back up the next round, but 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 and in some instances on the very same day he was asking for security. so i think it's imminently fair

to ask why sidney blumenthal had unfettered access to you, whatever he wanted to talk about and there's not a single solitary e-mail from you to ambassador stevens. i think that's fair and we'll take that up. >> gentleman yield gentleman yield? >> yes. >> thank you. and mr. chairman you've made inaccurate statements, tried to to-- republican statements that wasted tax dollars, for secretary clinton's bid tore president. and on face the nation, here is what you said, 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 i can do my job. the rest of it, classification 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 paviano because i need to know that the record is complete. i'm going back to the truth, the whole truth and nothing, but the truth. >> i'm waiting on you. >> mr. chairman, just wait. >> i'm waiting on the inaccurate statement. >> i'm getting there. >> we've got to take a break. >> it's not going to take long. you took four minutes over. >> i've let everybody go over, including you, mr. cummings. >> thank you very much. you issued a subpoena to sidney blumenthal on may 19th 2015 compelling him to appear for a deposition, june 2015.

you issued the subpoena unilaterally, without giving the committee to debate or vote on it. you had two marshals to serve on him and his wife without serving a request to appear voluntarily and you personally attended mr. blumenthal's deposition and asked him about the clinton foundation and personally asked your staff to ask questions about clinton, the clinton foundation which they did more than 50 times. now, these facts directly contradict the statements you made on national television. >> no, sir, with all due respect. they do know the. 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 whether he sent it by carrier pigeon, by smoke

signals, the fact is he sent it by e-mail. the fact is he sent it to the secretary of state, now, with respect to the subpoena, if he would have had answered the telephone calls, you need to make that the record is correct. >> that's exactly what i'm going to do. >> go ahead. >> that's what i am about to tell you, i move we put into the record the entire tran script of sidney blumenthal ap release the e-mails, that-- let's release the e-mail. >> motion. >> motion has been secretaried. >> we're not going to do that in a hearing. >> i'm consulted with a parliamentarian, you want the truth, the whole truth and now but the truth. let the world see it. >> why is it you want mr. blumenthal's released. you want the survivor's

released, the only one you asked for is sidney blumenthal, that one and miss mills. >> that's not true. >> that's two out of 54. you want to ask for some facts-- >> a recorded vote on the blumenthal. you said from the beginning, we want the truth, the whole truth and nothing, but the truth. why don't we put the entire transcript out there and let the world see it. what do you have to hide? >> these only e-mails you have released in. the fairness to mr. blumenthal and the american people in the interest of a complete record if you're going to release his e-mails and release the transcript where he has the chance to give the context of the e-mails. >> you keep referring to the blumenthal e-mails i'd hasten to remind you, the only reason we have the blumenthal e-mails is because they were sent to the secretary of state. that's why they were released. they're not blumenthal e-mails. she's said since march, i want

my e-mails released and sidney blumenthal's e-mails were part of it. and i'd be happy to talk to parliamentarian, and if it would be in order and we'll take a vote. we'll have a business meeting and take up mr. blumenthal's transcript and what other transcripts you want and while we're there, we'll take up the 20 some odd outstanding-- >> the allegations made against him are refuted by his testimony. >> that's your opinion. >> well, if you disagree, release the transcripts, why-- >> what allegations, what allege? >> why conceal the trancescriptstranscripts, you have the power to release them. >> i'll tell you why because i'm not going to release one transcript of one who knows nothing about libya by his own admission, while people who risked your life. you have no interest in their

story getting out. you don't want the 18 ds agents or cia agents. the only transcripts you want released are miss mills and sidney blumenthal. we'll take all of this up and the only person you're interested in asking about during your questioning is sidney blumenthal. if you're so interested in him. release the transcript. you selectively released his e-mails, the only witness you've done that for. why are we asking for only his transcripts. >> i'm going to ask the gentleman from california to do a better job of characterizing these are not sidney blumenthal's e-mails, these are secretary clinton's e-mails. if you think you've heard sidney blumenthal's e-mails, wait until next round. we're adjourned. neil: bottom line, what they're argument about, and hillary clinton's cheshire smile, what they can present and not present particularly when it's

the e-mail the secretary of state was receiving from clinton friend sydney blumenthal, the argument was if you're characterizing that, chairman gowdy, the comments the way you are, release his e-mails. gowdy says if i do that with one, back and forth and back and forth. and you look at the theater. hillary clinton didn't have to say a word. she could sit back and smile and watch them go at it. >> that would seem to be the advantage of hillary clinton for the time being. the read right-- joining us on the phone, charlie wrangle. what do you make of what's going on? >> i'm embarrassed as a member of congress that we've had so many hearings on the subject that is so sensitive and yet, we have no additional information. the request he of how many e-mails were sent back and forth or by the witness, not

the witness, but by blumenthal to me has nothing to do with the conduct of our, at that time, our secretary of state. i think that-- >> do you find what the chairman was saying though, congressman, that hillary clinton was responding and communicating with sidney blumenthal, but not with ambassador stevens. i think that's what he was trying to get at. but the thing is, i think that the secretary made it abundantly clear and most people that use e-mails know it, that business is not conducted by e-mails. it's conducted by individual conversations with people, most of them confidential, especially when you're talking about the security of people in outposts like benghazi, so-- >> you're assuming congressman. i don't know what the truth is it, that whatever hillary clinton communication was going on with ambassador stevens was happening through these cables and other communications that are not e-mails, even though a lot of them have popped up on her private e-mail server.

i guess what i'm asking, is this going anywhere? it's like a he said, she said and trying to say there's inconsistency there. you speaking for many democrats are saying there's nothing there, it's a political kabul, what is it going? >> it wasn't me who said it was political. it was the republican majority leader who said it was republican members of congress who said it, it was a staff member of the republican control who said it. neil: you don't think that chairman gowdy raised any valid points? >> i i really don't, i really don't. if he did, he would have other witnesses there, other than the candidate that's running in the primary for president. i don't think that the whole question of what happened in benghazi and whether or not more could have been done to protect the americans who served our country so well, that the secretary of state, who is in march with the president, with the cia and

defense department, i don't think that another hearing is going to prove anything else. neil: you might be right. a lot of folks don't know about what are the politics and the views. you're a korean war hero and say that lightly, i think a lot of your service and you don't talk about that much. i want to talk to that charlie rangel. something bad happened, and miscommunicated and went afoul in benghazi. so to that veteran, do you think we are getting to the bottom of what happened to these four dead men? >> hell no. and if you want to talk about the concerning of life and death, tens of thousands of american soldiers on november 30th, 1950 were surrounded by the chinese or the yellow river celebrating north korea from china and nobody ever explained

why mccarthy was in there talking with truman in washington and why we lost all those americans. neil: very valid point. but as a veteran. do you feel -- i'm not asking you to cast political aspersions here. do you feel that the government of the united states, whether it's the state department, whether it's the white house, the defense department, let these men down? >> no, no, i have no way of knowing and certainly no evidence has come out of the hearings. neil: you know that ambassador stevens for looking for help. >> you're damn right, everybody that gets killed in combat is looking for help. neil: that's what i'm asking charlie rangel the korean decorated-- >> no, no, don't do that. the people in 911 were calling for help after they had the attack. neil: would you say the same, congressman, if this were a republican administration that was being fingered for dropping the ball protecting the

security of americans? >> i would say that i would want an investigation, i would want to know the facts, i would want to know whether anything could have been done to save these people's lives. they were americans like i am, but after having all of these hearings and not having one scintilla of evidence, then i have to say, how long does this go on? we've spent millions of dollars on this. and about to have a crisis and fiscal ability to pay our debts. we don't know whether we can have a continued resolution in order to fund the government, we can't find a damn place to-- and i'm saying one of the reasons why americans are so frustrated because having public hearings like this, it's not reaching the goal that you and i and most americans want to accomplish. neil: then you understand the fear expressed by some, including gowdy, i know you disagree, if we don't get to

the bottom of this, there's no accountability. a secretary of state who says she accepts the responsibility for what happened. but doesn't take the blame. now, as someone who has served his country very well, politically and militarily. the a fear was if we didn't find out how the government botched this, it will happen again and again and again. do you think that's the case? >> neil, i am trying to be as nonpartisan as i can be, but saying that the secretary of state is responsible for those lost lives, to me, is ridiculous as saying that president bush is responsible for the lives lost in 911. there was nothing he could have done to prevent is. neil: on that, you don't agree with donald trump who says he was responsible. it was under his-- >> i don't think he said he was responsible. trump knows he's a showman, he knows what he said. he said-- >> he said it occurred under the president's watch and didn't keep us safe.

>> of course he did, and if we have a fiscal crisis and we caught bin laden on the president's watch. and that's. neil: the secretary state was the ceo of the state department. >> i don't think that trump is saying that president bush is responsible for the attack. neil: no, i'm saying it happened under his watch, the buck stops at him. >> so, benghazi happened. neil: under hillary clinton's watch and the buck stops with her. >> well, it happened under president obama's watch, too, he was president, but we can't hold people responsible in washington for what has happened in a war that we shouldn't have been involved in the first place. if you want to have an investigation, find out why the united states has intruded in a collision that religious people have had in the middle east for 2000 years. neil: and what are you saying, that the developments in libya then were whose initial responsibility?

>> it certainly is not the responsibility of secretary clinton. neil: aren't you doing the same political picking and choosing that you criticize republicans of doing? >> i am saying that i don't think we should have gone into syria and the fact that we did was not her choice, it was president's choice. if you want to get me to be bipartisan, i would say i don't really believe that president clinton should have gotten involved in syria, it should have been the united nations, arab people providing the leadership because the threat of these people in the middle east-- >> you're talking about president obama and the incursions-- >> i'm talking saudi arabia, the egyptians, it's in their back yard. neil: got it. >> and i recent the fact that we have american lives being lost for people who won't defend themselves. so, whether it's bush, or whether it's obama, i don't really believe that america should be the police people of

the world and when we lose somebody, whether we lose them in korea, lose them in afghanistan, i don't really think that for a political search in a committee like this, if there was anybody that's done something to cause the lives of americans to be lost, they should be indicted and sent to jail and i don't care what their party label is but to have this to go on and to have them admit that it has to do with her reelection, it makes me embarrassed. neil: let me ask you this, if the fbi director were to indict hillary clinton, i don't even know what the possibility of that is. >> they didn't indict. it goes to a grand jury. the evidence is heard, the grand jury-- >>, but he would finger her for goofing up here, for lying, for hiding, what would you-- >> the grand jury has to present the evidence. neil: so you don't think anything is going to come down justice or the fbi more to the point and that nothing will happen to her?

>> i really think and i don't see-- i'm not happy about it, but i think that it's going to be very embarrassing to the republicans, but that means also embarrassing to the congress. neil: all right. >> i think what is going on here with the speakership, i'm not delighted that this is happening as a democrat because it's embarrassing to the damn institution. neil: and by the way paul ryan, switching gears, you have to go, if it is paul ryan what do you think? >> paul ryan is a heck of a great guy and all he's asking is that the leadership be civil and allow him to serve as speaker of the house without stabbing him in the back. the fact that you have to ask this of your colleague means there's something more happening in the republican party. neil: well, he would know the be the first politician to ask them of either his fellow parties or the opposition. >> you don't do that publicly on television. come on. neil: charlie. >> whatever problems.

neil: this is me you're talking to. >> i know. are you telling me that he says that he's willing to serve his country and become speaker as long as the republicans and the tea party and the freedom party give him a break and-- >> did nancy pelosi ever ask for such assurances from you? >> heck no. neil: all right. >> because we've had differences, but. neil: yeah. >> we have he never had differences on television. neil: the worst thing you want is to be on television, you know those tv anchors, charlie. >> this has never happened in the history of the country that we can't find the person of a party to serve as speaker because-- >> it actually has. >> when? >> it's happening again, almost a century ago. >> you were-- we're out of time. >> you act like you didn't know this. >> i know you think i was around a century ago. neil: i didn't mean to go so long. it cuts to the core of something. but it was very good having

you, thank you very, very much. >> good talking with you, neil. neil: all right, charlie rangel, the read from republican from the state of tennessee. you heard back and forth, congressman, political, it's this, it's that. is anything coming of it though? i kept watching hillary clinton as she was sitting there watching these two go at it, elijah cummings and chairman gowdy. >> she might want to be careful, because it's the exchange between chairman gowdy and hillary clinton is the reason that these men were killed. it seems like there was a lot of lack of coordination between the white house and disagreement between the secretary of state and, you know, there's a lot of calls for request for help and we haven't got a good reason why that hasn't happen. neil: i guess they're adjourned until 2:15, another 45 minutes v. congressman, what comes out of this, whether we get any closer to finding out what happened

and the argument will be, and i guess the democrats on the committee said after this-- and too long, we're done here. if that's the case, and we really haven't come closer to find out what might come through the e-mails, i'm told, then was this all a waste of time? >> it's not a waste of time because the e-mails that are the key. it's the evidence that's been withheld that's the key. there's a reason that this has been stalled for two or three years. you look back at the fact that whole youtube video, i thought that line of questioning by representative jordan was quite interesting and hillary's response to that. and the fact is that they knew within 24 hours that wasn't the case, but the decision was made to go on tv the following sunday and mislead the american people. and i mean, it was 56 days before election. the president wanted to claim libya as one of his success stories. it was messy it did nt look good. there was definitely politics in play. the credibility of the secretary is definitely in question because of the fact that she won't directly answer that question.

last year, two years ago, she said what difference does it make? it does make a difference because people want to hear the truth. the fact that her e-mails have been erased and redacted and withheld shows she's hiding something and the fact that it started out with deceit would show that something is hidden. i think we're making great progress, it's going to create more and more questions, why didn't help come. why did they lie to the american people. why is hillary misleading the americans regarding her e-mails. i disagree with congressman rangel. she was obstructing justice. as we get more and more with the e-mails. what's going on with blumenthal, and she claimed to gowdy she didn't know and later she claimed she did know. that's why you have the hearings, you try to get to the truth and that's what chairman gowdy is trying to do. neil: we thank you for your time. and for 45 minutes they're

taking a lunch break, maybe a relief break for hillary clinton, she survived three hours of this back and forth and for her to take it in and see her questioners attack each other. congressman gray davis on this democrat. i guess it goes back to where this goes and i always say the democrats think it's a witch hunt and the republicans think she's getting away with murder. and never the two shall meet. is that where it ends up? >> and here is the fact, this is the ninth committee to go over the same ground of the it's unclear whether any new fact or anything will come out of this. we've had recommendlations implemented largely by secretary of state clinton and secretary of state kerry, and i found the most interesting thing this morning, twice members of the armed forces committee said, where is the chairman of the armed forces committee? why isn't the cia director there? and i'll tell you why they weren't there?

they are not running for president. this is all about trying to pin any potential blame on hillary clinton, she's the only one running for president. >> well, she was also secretary of state at the time, governor. >> right, but working closely as you have to with the secretary of state and intelligence agencies, the white house, our friends in the middle east. neil: title-wise she was above them all. >> yes, but the president basically calls the shots, everyone advises. neil: fair enough. i guess, governor, what i want to get a handle on. i don't know how close you are to joe biden when he opted out. the talk was that he assessed the landscape here, maybe looked at her debate performance and maybe looked at her improving poll numbers, maybe looked at this benghazi thing and it doesn't appear to be going anywhere, maybe got inside word that there isn't going to be any indictment, who knows? but he opted out of the race thinking she's home-free, is she. >> first of all, i think that

vice-president, as you know, i told you he's a decent and honorable man and i think he made the decision largely for personal reasons and he ran out of time. do you think, governor, if he felt she was vulnerable, he apparently did for a while, something changed. that did not or was not the case. you know, he's not a dumb politician, he's very shrewd, that he would have jumped in this race? >> i can't speak for him. he obviously reads the papers like everybody, sure, like everyone else and i do think her stock and her polls and everything have been improving and when you have the number two person in the house of representative saying this committee was set up in part to drive hillary's poll numbers down, a republican congressman from new york confirming that a week ago, a strong debate performance and polls improving, obviously, everyone reads that, but i think that vice-president biden's decision was largely personal. neil: all right. so, let me ask you, if you had not listened, governor, to the

first minute of joe biden's remarks yesterday, you almost would have thought he was running for president after all. in other words, he posited a very good argument, whether you accept or reject his notions, more government and college for everybody and all that, that if she stumbles, i'm here. what do you think of that? >> well, i think if you've been vice-president of the united states and you've run for president twice, clearly, you have the-- bugging you, you want to run for president, i don't think anything about that, but for reasons, mostly personal, i think, he decided he couldn't do that. neil: you may be right. do you think, governor and maybe anyone would be mentioned as a backup replacement in case something goes wrong with her. al gore's name has been mentioned, john kerry, do you think that's wishful thinking? >> i think that's the media looking to write a story. neil: so you are not running for president? >> no, i'm not running for president, i'm just working

with you, neil, trying to get the truth out here. neil: governor, it's always a pleasure, i appreciate you taking the time. >> my pleasure. neil: all right. you know, a lot of candidates are watching this, but i think they should be watching this. look what's going on on the corner of wall and broad, long after this benghazi thing goes away and it will go away whether you like it or not, this is probably their much bigger worry. i'll explain after this. but at t. rowe price we can help guide your investments through good times and bad. for over 75 years, our clients have relied on us to bring our best thinking to their investments so in a variety of market conditions... you can feel confident... ...in our experience. call a t. rowe price retirement specialist or your advisor ...to see how we can help make the most of your retirement savings. t. rowe price. invest with confidence. technology empowers us to achieve more. it pushes us to go further. special olympics has almost five million athletes

in 170 countries. the microsoft cloud allows us to immediately be able to access information, wherever we are. information for an athlete's medical care, or information to track their personal best. with microsoft cloud we save millions of man hours, and that's time that we can invest in our athletes and changing the world. you wouldn't take medicine without checking the side effects. hey honey. huh. the good news is my hypertension is gone. so why would you invest without checking brokercheck? check your broker with brokercheck.

>> i am connell mcshane with you. mcdonald's is a big business story. we're watching the benghazi hearings, but this is up almost 8%. earnings topped expectations. it's interesting what is happening with mcdonald's with the sales opening growing and first time in two years. it's struggling, mcdonald's has been, but attributes the earnings and this beat to the all-day breakfast menu and we were talking about that and also to new menu items. a-ha, we present to you now the butter milk crispy chicken sandwich. they're selling like crazy, like butter milk chicken sandwiches and the dow is up 290 points. neil is coming back with more coast to coast in a moment.

>> all right. i know. all right, i know that republicans are focused on the hearings, the screen. and on the right here, a surge in the dow seems to be largely reflected on improving sentiment not only for the holiday shopping season and corporate america is ready to tighten its belt and better than expected earnings.

you've heard american's shopping plans have improved. maybe the republicans should be focusing on different things, less on benghazi and more, they are not laying a glove on hillary clinton despite passions to the opposite on the right and i wonder whether they should be paying more attention to the economy and what's happening because if wall street is reflecting improvement. it could be a far bigger worry for them. >> i think that most americans you know, they're watching this hearing today and most americans are not watching this hearing today, but for those that are, if they're not following the issues to a t, their eyes are glazing. it's hard to follow this chain of events so i think that's probably, i don't think it's going to be a winning issue to really harp on what went on on september 11th, 2012 in benghazi for republicans at this stage in the political process. i think as this fbi

investigation unfolds, whether or not that was the intention of republican investigators to begin with, this fbi investigation is happening. neil: right. >> that could potentially produce some potent political issues, but candidates should still be talking about the economy, i don't think it's either/or. i don't see much in the way of block shell political attack ads coming out of this hearing. neil: i wonder, too, for those who are tuesdayjust tuning in, that maybe they sort of calibrated the likelihood of the fbi, you know, going after her, hillary clinton, over this whole thing the e-mails, benghazi or both, it's going down, way down, and that she'll dodge any problems here. what do you think? >> yeah, you know, there's really -- the only thing republican candidates can do right now is really sit back and wait and see what happens and i think that probably puts them in a better position to say, look, this was not a

political issue for me, i wasn't jumping on this band wagon from the outset, i waited to see what the facts showed us and now shows us that clinton did this or that wrong or maybe she's exonerated and come out looking like they were more moderate in their approach to the issue. so, it's something that's going to be used in the general election, far more than the primary, obviously, in any case, so i don't see the harm on holding off on that for now and focusing on the economy. neil: another argument, with the base, it's certainly, the democratic base it's not going to hurt hillary clinton. they think it's politicized. republicans always think that go after her, go after her. an argument that the right feels strongly about continuing to push this benghazi stuff and many argue passionately it should. the left not so much. but with independents, in the general election, independents are surprisingly very focused on this, depending on the poll and say it's partly or fully justified.

so, that's almost a year from now. it is a year from now. would it be an issue a year from now? what's your thinking? >> that depends on what is turned up between now and then. neil: in other words, whether the fbi does something? >> right, and if there are any major revelations that come out of the congressional committee's investigation. i think that most voters want to make sure that, you know, we have active oversight and accountability for our public officials, especially ones as high ranking as hillary clinton was. they're horrified by what happened in benghazi and they want to make sure that every angle is explored there and if there was wrongdoing, the people are held accountable for that. i think as long as that's the focus of the committee, you'll see, not democrats, but obviously republicans and a lot of more middle of the road voters are going to continue supporting it. neil: too early to tell, we'll see. thank you, appreciate it very much. >> you bet. neil: for those of you who just tuned in, there was a great

exchange by chairman gowdy and elijah cummings and the money shot was hillary clinton watching it. game over, after this.

♪ ♪ (ee-e-e-oh-mum-oh-weh) (hush my darling...) (don't fear my darling...) (the lion sleeps tonight.)

(hush my darling...) man snoring (don't fear my darling...) (the lion sleeps tonight.) woman snoring take the roar out of snore. yet another innovation only at a sleep number store. you both have a perfect driving record. >>perfect. no tickets. no accidents... >>that is until one of you clips a food truck ruining your perfect record. >>yup... now, you would think your insurance company would cut you some slack, right? >>no. your insurance rates go through the roof. your perfect record doesn't get you anything. >>anything. perfect! for drivers with accident forgiveness liberty mutual won't raise your rates due to your first accident. and if you do have an accident our claim centers are available to assist you 24/7. for a free quote call liberty mutual at switch to liberty mutual and

you could save up to $509 call today at see car insurance in a whole new light. liberty mutual insurance. >> going back to truth, the whole truth and nothing, but the truth. i'm waiting on you. >> just wait. >> i'm waiting on the inaccurate statement. >> i'm getting there. mr. chairman-- >> well, we've got to take a break. >> it's not going to take long. you took up four minutes over. i've let everybody go over, including you, mr. cummings. >> thank you very much. neil: i really wanted to show you hillary clinton's face during that. it was like a ping-pong match and she was having a field day. she didn't have to speak.

legally, legally, is she in hot water. a very good lawyer on whether that remains to be seen or what he's seen so far in case she has nothing to worry about. very close republican strategist, mark zorano on that as well. and randy, as a lawyer, any smoking gun here? any problem for her? >> you talked about hot water, the water couldn't be any colder except the ice in her veins. you hit it right on the head. she could sit back and watch them all beat the crap out of each other and she doesn't have to open her mouth. what have we learned? we've learned absolutely nothing, other than we still don't know why are we here? are we here because we're trying to learn from our mistakes. we lost four americans, lost our ambassador or watching someone trying to derail a presidential campaign? >> mark, do you think republicans risk overstepping their hand here and that because this issuing, passionate though it is, we still don't to get to the bottom of how the heck did

these guys die? it's not resonating at an issue for either party. >> the electorate has told us through polling, they want to see some fightment they want to see fight out of the republicans to finally stand up to administration. neil: fight for what? >> fight for principle. neil: this is a fight? >> because this is a fight. hillary's campaign is not going to be made or broken today. she's playing it cool. she's sitting there kind. ho-hum, as these guys are arguing. neil: they're waiting to trip her up. randy, do you wait, as a lawyer they're obviously hoping that she gets fired, that's when she might perjure herself, i don't know, you're a lawyer. if that's what they're waiting for, a fbi investigating this or anything come to pass might season. >> you raise a great point, you what you could also be watching, as much as we'd like to think that the republicans have gotten nowhere, it may very well let secretary of

state clinton talk and create what we call a perjury trap. she either says something under oath that's not true now or-- >> has she done so, randy to your knowledge. >> so far no. but you have a fbi investigation, department of justice, waiting to see if she says something in opposite to what she has said on a prior occasion, which now creates what is called impeachment material. neil: i don't know. i know these organizations aren't supposed to be politically motivated, but the cynic in me doesn't see that happening. what about you? >> i think this is more about optics and frankly sidney blumenthal is important to that. voters look at the beltway and politically elite and they see hillary clinton as a poser child and they don't trust her. frankly for her to sit there so smugly and let these guys duke it out and blumenthal feeding her information, when he wasn't

authorized to, he didn't have security clearance. she had taken information from him and wasn't with the ambassador. >> whether she's running for president or not, but the optics, neil, they suggest that the clintons are insiders and blumenthal is feeding her-- >> you know this like ragweed, inside and out, and most people are not. >> this is a situation where once again, i think the american voters are going to be tired of bipartisan politics, watching just-- put them-- >> why they want an outsider, randy. >> let them go banging up against each other, we've learned absolutely nothing. we lost four americans, we lost an ambassador, that's what this is supposed to be about. what have we learned? nothing. >> voters want to see someone fighting on behalf of those dead americans. >> fighting for what. fighting or--

>> they want to see this branch of government held accountable by the other branch and they want to see an outsider in the white house. neil: way too soon to tell, but to me nothing seems to be sticking or resonating, but again, times could change. >> fair enough. neil: an indictment could come no way to tell. >> hillary will beat herself sooner, neil. neil: we'll see. thank you very much. the white house statement on the debt thing, republicans get your act together. hop on it, move on it, this is nonnegotiatable. get to it. also, paul ryan just secured another big group backing him for speak are of the house and he does appear to have the votes to be speaker of the house. after this.

[ male announcer ] eligible for medicare? that's a good thing, but it doesn't cover everything. only about 80% of your part b medical expenses. the rest is up to you. so consider an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company. like all standardized medicare supplement insurance plans they pick up some of what medicare doesn't pay and could save you in out-of-pocket medical costs. call today to request a free decision guide to help you better understand what medicare is all about and which aarp medicare supplement plan works best for you.

with these types of plans, you'll be able to visit any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients. plus, there are no networks, and virtually no referrals needed. there's a range of plans to choose from, too, . . in the only medicare supplement insurance plans endorsed by aarp an organization serving the needs of people 50 and over for generations... and provided by unitedhealthcare insurance company, which has over 30 years of experience behind it. ♪ ♪ call today. remember medicare supplement insurance helps cover some of what medicare doesn't pay. expenses that could really add up. these kinds of plans could save you in out-of-pocket medical costs. you'll be able to choose any doctor who accepts medicare patients. and there are virtually no referrals needed. so don't wait.

with all the good years ahead, look for the experience and commitment to go the distance with you. call now to request your free decision guide. this easy-to-understand guide will answer some of your questions and help you find the aarp medicare supplement plan that's right for you. neil: all right. mark and back and forth in washington. look at wall and broad. buoyed by better than expected news on home sales, some companies reporting better-than-expected earnings and better than expected outlooks for their respective companies.

that is buoying the mood on wall street. we saw couple hours ago, 15 minutes before this hearing resumes. i want to update you as well. we do have issue about a speaker, finding one. it looks like paul ryan has a key conservative group republican study committee endorsement. it appears he has the votes he needs if he is so interested in the job. we have trish regan. >> hey neil. day that could make hillary clinton's presidential run. welcome to "the intelligence report." former secretary of state is being grilled today. lawmakers want to know why four americans were killed on attack in compound in libya when there were repeated requests for more security and why hillary clinton and administration tried to blame attack on video that supposedly sparked an uprising and new emails just uncovered result of this investigation