it was 18 days to get the f.b.i. team to benghazi. >> so the crime scene was unsecured for 18 days? >> yes, sir. >> witnesses were not interviewed -- >> the gentleman, please finish up because we want to move on. >> we will finish you up. we will finance up if there is a second round. >> for all individuals, to the extent that our witnesses can stay on, we will try to have a second round. the ranking member and i both realize we are a little behind schedule. i take blame for it. we're going to try to move within five minutes of questioning whenever possible. the gentleman from. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> i want to thank --. >> megyn: knocks fuse alert out of washington about truth about benghazi attacks. i'm megyn kelly.

we're going back live here momentarily. we want to bring you up to speed on what we've learned so far. today the lawmakers are hearing from three men, two of whom have never spoken publicly about the attack that killed four americans including our ambassador. members of the house and oversight reform committee holding the hearing entitled, benghazi, explosion go failure and recognizing courage because some of them believe the obama administration has lied to the american people about events before, during and after this attack and place politics ahead of safety and security. three men being questioned or gregory hicks, he was number two to ambassador stevens. he was in tripoli on the night of attack and spoke to the ambassador moments before he was murdered. mark thompson that leads the support team. that is the government's on call team to rapidly respond to

terrorist incidents and eric nordstrom who was the top security officer leading up to the attack. he talked before the house oversight committee in october of last year. here is a sample what they have revealed on the night of the attack, at times their testimony was emotional. >> i would also like to thank the committee for your continued efforts in in investigating all the details and all the decisions related to the attack on our diplomatic facility. specifically, the committee's to find out what happened prior and during the attack matter, it matters to me personally, and it matters to my colleagues at the state. it matters to the american public for whom we serve.

most importantly -- excuse me -- it matters to the friends and family of ambassador stevens, 5 sean smith, glen doherty and tyrone woods that were murdered. >> i threw missed calls from the ambassador's phone and from fwron a phone number i didn't recognize. i punched the phone number i didn't recognize and i got ambassador on the other end. he said, greg, we're under attack. i said, okay and the line cut. scott attempted to lead the ambassador and sean smith out of the burning building. he managed to make it out. he tried repeatedly to go back in to try to rescue sean and the ambassador but had to stop due

to exposure to smoke. the response team from the annex in benghazi, six individuals drove the attackers out of our compound and secured it temporarily. there have been estimates there were 60 attackers were in the compound at one particular time. there were repeated attempts by all the rfs and response team from the annex to go into the burning building and recover or try to save sean and the ambassador. they found sean's body and pulled it out, but he was no longer responsive. they did not find the ambassador. i received a call from the prime minister of libya, i think it's the saddest phone call i've ever had in my life. he told me that ambassador

stevens had passed away. >> megyn: joining me is bret baier. anchor of special report. thank you for being here. we're monitoring the hearing right now. there is a lawmaker i'm told who is giving a speech and not engaging in the q&a we'll get back to it in moments. i want to hear from you. folks in the news business at fox news have been following this story pretty closely. we may be neck deep in it, but most of our viewers have been following it waist deep. for me to understand better, what the significance of what we have heard so far, opening statements, a little q&a, but where are they taking us so far? >> first of all the significance of that emotional testimony by eric nordstrom, whether meant to or not, it seemed to be a direct rebuttal to secretary clinton

who is now played again and again statement in a hearing on benghazi what does it matter? his phrase there, what does it matter? then breaking down the emotion and surrounding that. it gets to an answer to that. that is just something i noticed in that phrasing. >> megyn: my apologies to you, but i'm hearing through my ears, it's military capability. can you stand by? let's listen. >> you mentioned in it your opening statement, but if you could pleasing back the second team. the second team included four u.s. military. these are highly trained special forces personnel, one of which is a medic. yet these military personnel do not operate under your authority and your permission is not enough for them to go. explain to me again exactly what

happened. >> again, we determined that we needed to send a second team from tripoli to secure the airport for the withdrawal of our personnel from benghazi after the mortar attack. >> were any of these u.s. military personnel not permitted to travel on a rescue mission or relief mission to benghazi? >> they were not authorized to travel. >> what happened with those personnel? >> they remained in tripoli with us. the medic with the nurse to the hospital and his skills to the treatment of and care of our wounded. >> how did the personnel reacted to be told to stand down? >> they were furious. i can only say, i will quote lieutenant colonel gibson -- there is the first time in my career that a diplomat has more balls than somebody in the

military. >> so the military is told to stand down, not engage in the fight. these are the kind of people willing to engage. what did that message come down and where did the stand down order came from? >> i believe it came from either africa or south africa. >> and general hamm but he was in washington, d.c., is that correct? >> i don't know the whereabouts the general on that night. >> mr. chairman, this is something we're going to continue to explore. i kneed to move to mr. thompson. you were the leader within the state department. according to the state department, it's the foreign emergency support team the only interagency short notice team poised to respond to terrorist attacks worldwide. i want to read an email sent to

you kathleen ferguson at 9:a8g. who is kathleen ferguson? >> she is under secretary kennedy's deputy. >> you wrote, quote, i am told that pat kennedy participated in a senior conference call with the white house and discouraged the best options. we have dedicated aircraft that that is able to respond in four hours. when f.b.i. was contacted, they responded this situation would be better addressed via a ses response. mark, two questions. >> gentleman, just a moment. earlier there was one document that had not been placed in the record because it hasn't been provided for official channels. i ask that we get it. if you could make your document available so we could make

copies. then for any other members on either side of the it, if you want to go to a document that is not currently of record, please do us a favor of having copies so they can be distributed at or prior to the beginning of the questioning. i'm sorry to interrupt. >> mr. chairman, as you recall yesterday, i said, i reminded you with regard to mr. thompson. this is the first time we got a syllable from him. let me go on. one of the things i said in our conversation the if there were any documents that were going to be used we would have liked to have them yesterday. with regard to this document, it sounds like it's a crucial document. in fairness to everybody, to all of us and to mr. nordstrom who said he wanted a complete hearing, we wouldn't wo like to have the document even if we have to suspend. we would like to see the

document he is talking about. >> in the case of this particular document, my understanding you do have the document. i'll let staff work on and that provide additional time. if it turns out not to be true. for the witnesses, if you have documents that you are going refer to, if you would allow counsel to have copies made. i want to make sure that everyone has it as soon as position. obviously if the state department showed us documents in camera, if they allowed us to have copies we would all have copies. i'm sorry, we'll give you back a couple seconds. you gentlemen may continue. >> mr. thompson, do you recall that email? >> i do. >> were you ever given a detailed explanation why the y the fest was not considered for deployment and did you attempt to attend any senator meetings for a deployment and what happened?

>> the reason i was given this was not the time for the fest. it might be too unsafe for it. i got that through ms. ferguson. i readdress that and readdressed it with staff two days later. >> did you attempt to attend any meetings? >> the next morning there were btcs. i presumed i was going part of that. i was told not, but ct, the fest portion and response portion of the count terrorism bureau was not represented there. >> why were you not called into action. >> that is what table tops and what you are prepared to do. why was that not called into action? >> i do not know. >> it's one of the great mysteries. we have expertise. a table top that they understand

it. they were never asked to go into attacks. >> we had no idea when this was going to end. >> i thank the gentleman and the gentleman is correct. we now recognize the lady from district of columbia ms. norton for five minutes. >> thank you. mr. thompson, i want to say to the families that we continue to feel deeply about your loss. i have some questions of mr. thompson concerning the role of the counterterrorism bureau. mr. thompson, you said your lawyers are unwilling to talk to any democratic member of in this committee, so i had to rely to statements that were made to the press. your own statement is mostly biographical about the work you've done and the rest.

now, one i found indicated that you believe that secretary clinton and ambassador patrick kennedy -- i'm quoting from this report -- tried to cut the counterterrorism bureau out of the loop as they and other administration officials weighed how to respond and characterize the benghazi attack. now, that is the end of that quote. mr. thompson, i'm asking you, is that a quote -- is that quote accurate that you believe that the counterterrorism bureau was intentionally kept out of the loop for political reasons? >> it is not. i indicated that the portion of the counterterrorism bureau that responds to crises, i.e., my

part of the office, was pushed out of the office. the counterterrorism was represented after the night of 9/11. >> but do you believe you were kept out for political reasons? >> i do not politicize my job, madam. i have served under three presidents, starting with president clinton up to the president. i have served six -- >> i have to continue. i was holding the quote. so the quote is accurate then? >> correct. >> that is very important for the record. mr. thompson is not saying they were kept out of the loop for political reasons. this week this quote apparently caused your former boss in counterterrorism bureau, i'm speaking of daniel benjamin to issue a public statement disagreeing with the allegation which was in quotes. he said, i am in our nou quoting

him, it has been alleged that the state department's counter-terrorism bureau was cut out of the decision and decision-making in the aftermath of the benghazi attack. i ran the bureau then and i can say with certainty as the former coordinator for counterterrorism that it's simply untrue. do you agree with ambassador benjamin? >> i agree that the counterterrorism bureau was included, but there is a distinction with a difference with respect to the portion of the counterterrorism bureau that would be most effective in the aftermath of an attack. >> all of this was under benjamin. he didn't say one portion or the other. you are saying although the bureau was represented, somehow, some portions of the bureau were not represented.

how is that? >> that is what happened, ma'am. >> it says the bureau, the bureau going on, and the interagency discussion about the longer term response to benghazi at no time was the bureau sidelined or otherwise kept from carrying out its task. it seems to me to directly contradict your testimony here today. >> i respectfully disagree. >> you say well you were in but some our or the, some part of this was not in? >> no other part of the counter-terrorism bureau is responsible for response for responding to the crisis. my office was not involved in subsequent meetings. other offices were, other professional people. >> we don't want to get involved

in who down the chain of line gets consulted. the ambassador says after the attack, the first question to arise that involves the counter terrorism bureau was whether or not the foreign emergency support team the question of deployment was posed earlier and decided against such a deployment but in my view was appropriate to pose the question and the decision was a correct one. now, were you aware that your superiors were consulted about the decision not to deploy the foreign knowledge support team. >> you can answer that but time has expired? >> as earlier indicated, ma'am, i was told that by the under secretary of management office. the normal process for deploying

the team is that assistant secretary level a counter-terrorism security group at the white house, those options are discussed. at that convening of the csg, that decision is recommended or not recommended to the deputies' committee. it is not solely a state department function or authority to launch the foreign emergency support team even though we are one part of it. >> i thank the gentleman. we now go to the gentleman from oklahoma. >> thank you. more hicks, when you arrived in july, did the facilities in benghazi. >> megyn: wanted to get a quick break because we're going to reassume. i want to check in with brett. that was the first we've seen where they got to the meat of it. you heard the man's complaint, no counterterrorism wasn't dealt out of this together but the most effective, most relevant branch of the counter-terrorism bureau was kept out of it.

a response team in tripoli was also kept out. >> two different things, the fest team which is designed to respond to crisis was, the decision was made not to use them. that is what mark thompson is testifying to and he doesn't know why. why he was kept out of loop. then the questioning from representative chaffetz to gregg hicks, it was about the special forces team and special forces on the ground in tripoli who was going to get on c-130 to get the people out thereof and they were told to stand down. they wouldn't have made it in time for the second attack, the mortar attack that killed the two navy seals. however, we're being told and the lawmakers are being told and we may get to the questioning here that stand down order for the military in tripoli had been issued earlier than that. they were not allowed to go to

benghazi. that made them livid. >> megyn: let me stop you there. are we talking about one or two stand down orders? is there a difference between the c-130 team that was ready to deploy and the f.e. s.t. team? >> two different things. these are the libyan and the c-130 is the vehicle by which they were going to take the u.s. forces in tripoli. the fest team is something that would be activated in washington. they would be responding within four hours, technically f.e.s.t. teams operate in crises around the world. the questions by khia fets, where did the stand down order for folks on the ground from tripoli to benghazi, where did it come from. you heard them say it came from africom and that is military.

when they hear from more from that down the road. >> megyn: 'question about whether it was the right order and justifications for it will hold water. we will reassume after the break. we're going to squeeze in a quick commercial break with the hearing. [ female announcer ] switch to swiffer wetjet,

and you'll dump your old mop. but don't worry, he'll find someone else. ♪ who's that lady? ♪ who's that lady? ♪ sexy lady ♪ who's that lady? [ female announcer ] used mops can grow bacteria. swiffer wetjet starts with a clean p every time,

and its antibacterial cleaner kills bacteria mops can spread around. swiffer gives cleaning a whole new meaning. ♪ lovely lady

>>. >> megyn: resume our hearings. during the break, eric nordstrom testified that he sent a cable in march asking for security levels to stay the same before the september 11th attacks. it would have gone to charlene lamb that gave testimony and was called out for refusing that security as a result of the earlier hearings you saw in the case in the fall. >> let's go back to john teary ni of massachusetts. >> we chose not to contact them for whatever reason. earlier this week, the chairman

went on national television accused the administration of deliberately misleading the american people about the attacks in benghazi. for somebody that has earned the term of being a statement it's a little bit shocking to think that kind of statement would be made without any apparent back-up. the basis for the exchanges were apparently made by ambassador rice on news shows, sunday after the attacks. the comments were allegedly and talking points were provided by the intelligence community were supposedly manipulated for political purposes. what was quoted by the chairman is clearly the american public was misled. it was a political decision, close quoted. mr. hicks, you told our investigators that you weren't involved with the drafting of the talking points, is that right? >> yes, sir. >> mr. nordstrom, you weren't involved either? >> no, i was not.

>> and mr. thompson, you were not involved? >> yes, congressman, but i offered my services. i did not try to keep myself out of process, for the record. >> thank you. we know there are conflicting reports about what happened. we included a statement about libyan official there had been a demonstration in protests. mr. hicks we know you didn't believe there was a protest. you believe it was otherwise and president of libya contradicted with that statement on that. but the intelligence community insists it received initial reporting suggesting there was a demonstration. we know the reporting was wrong, now we know that but the mention of demonstration was put into the talking points by the intelligence committee not the white house or state department. i want to play a video of general clapper where he addresses the attacks on ambassador rice. >> when she was highly

criticized for following, what was your feeling inside, your own personal beliefs. you think it was fair? >> i thought it was unfair because the hits she took, i didn't think that was appropriate. she was going on what we had given her. that was our collective best judgment at the time as to what should have been said. >> thank you. >> so, general clapper says he thinks the attacks on ambassador rice was unfair. do you have an argument with his ver as when it he made those statements? >> there was no report from the u.s. mission in libya of a demonstration. >> difficult question i have for you. do you contest the general's veracity. is he lying or telling the truth

off what information he gave ambassador rice? >> i don't know anything about the developments of those talking points. >> look, we have haven't investigated this issue yet but the house intelligence committee has. they have all of the draft talking points. they got the briefings from c.i.a. officials accord to adam shift, part of that investigation, he said, general petraeus made it clear that the change was made to protect classified sources of information, not to spin it. not to politicize it. it wasn't done at the direction of the white house. as an aside we might be interested to protect classified information because we have had situations that had gone to libya and back and had a flare-up but what they disclosed but it was a bipartisan report issued by senator lieberman and collins, and i quote, no change was made for political reasons and no a attempt to mislead the

american people about what happened in benghazi. so, people have seen the documents. they have conducted a real investigation, reject the allegation they were made for political purposes or to deliberately mislead the american people. >> thank you. let me yield to mr. jordan. >> megyn: we will resume right after this break. begins with arthritis pain... and a choice. take up to 6 tylenol in a day or just 2 aleve for all day relief. all aboard. ♪

>>. >> megyn: fox news alert. back to benghazi in a moment.

an update on cleveland as one of three women freed from this horrifying kidnapping health for ten years finally returned home. it will happen momentarily. gina dejesus was 14 years old when she vanished but as we await a statement. we are wondering we'll get a first look at gina. they have been with police and now returning home where we expect gina's family to speak. momentarily, we don't know whether she is going to be there. we are also learning that that the main suspect was apparently a close family friend. but back to the benghazi hearings in the meantime,. >> it's not considered good news. what did she have to say to you? >> she demanded a report. >> was he is upset about the fact?

>> she was upset. >> this baby-sitter, this spy was not allowed to be there. all investigation was not about to be in classified hearing? >> she was very upset. >> so this goes next to secretary clinton, is that accurate. >> mr. chairman, he is guy of 22 years with outstanding service to our country, 22 years outstanding service, praised by everybody who counts. president, the secretary, everyone above him, yet now they are obstructing because he won't help them cover this up. he is an honorable man telling the truth. this is why this hearing is so important. >> thank you, gentlemen. the gentleman from missouri, mr. clay. >> thank you, m yielding. i want to thank the witnesses for being here today. you know the accountability review board made a number of

recommendations to better strengthen overseas embassies and missions like the one in benghazi. mr. nordstrom, you told us that you read the arb unclassified report and recommendations. do you think that i am complement go these recommendations is important to ensure the safety and security of our foreign service? >> absolutely. i had an opportunity to review that along with the other two committee reports. i think taken altogether, it's fairly comprehensive and reasonable. >> and i guess the diplomat like you feels very disheartened when you read in the paper -- say you are overseas and congress has cut this budget for embassy security and congress has been cheap on the cheap of providing protection to our personnel.

you know, in order to make security possible at our missions and embassies throughout the world, it's one recommendation of this report that attempts to grapple on these issues and err on the side of prioritization and support for people engaged in working in high threat areas. the solution requires a more serious and sustained commitment from congress to support state department needs which in total constitute a small percentage both of the full national budget and that spent for national security. but it's exactly what we in congress have failed to do in the past. let's look at our record.

house republicans voted to cut the administration's requests for embassy security funding by $128 million. that was in fiscal year 2011. in fiscal year 2012 -- they cut it by more. providing $331 million less than requested. you know, our republican counterparts have just said that these cuts are based on their priorities and choices. when asked whether he voted to cut diplomatic security by over $300 million, representative khia vets responded absolutely, dhia fets said absolutely. we have to make choices that these cuts have serious impact. i want you to know that my priorities including funding these recommendations which will

save lives. you know the arb, just to be clear, you provided information to the a.r.b., is that correct? >> theashgt. >> and you also provided information, more hicks? >> yes. >> it was led by ambassador pickering and admiral mullen who happen to be the former chairman of joint chiefs of staff. in its investigation, the review board interviewed more than 100 people, reviewed thousands of pages of documents and viewed hours of video tapes. the board made 29 recommendations to improve security systems and procedures to prevent future deadly attacks. a key finding made by the board related to availability of funding. it was specifically for temporary facilities in high

risk, high threat environments. the board stated, the department should develop minimum security standards for occupancy of temporary facilities in high risk, high threat environments and seek greater flexibility for the use of bureau of overseas buildings and operations, sources of funding. so that they can be rapidly made available for security upgrades at such facilities. it is important to note that the facility in benghazi was designated a temporary facility. mr. nordstrom, do you agree with the board's review? >> that was actually one of the specific things i talked with the board. my concern is there is no such thing when you look at the ospd standards for a temporary facility. by the very nature. >> but they developed recommendations? >> after the fact.

>> how about more hicks mr. hicks, do you agree with the recommendation? >> i'm not a security expert. i'm a diplomat, but i support every improvement that can be possibly made to improve our security overseas including increasing the training of our personnel. >> i thank the gentleman. i would also thank the gentleman from missouri were. you here on october 10th when the person that had those request forces additional security said money was not a factor, charlene lamb. do you remember her? >> i can't remember. >> so mr. nordstrom, you were on the panel. do you remember what she said? >> she said resources was in the an issue. i would also point to the a.r.b.report they talked to our chief financial officer who said resources were not an issue. >> but the a.r.b. says resources were an issue.

>> i guess the question i have about the a.r.b., it's not what they have but what it doesn't have and it stopped short of the very people that need to be asked those questions. under secretary of management and above. those are perfect questions that he needs to answer. >> i'm sure if we implement some of the regions, it will help us prevent a future incident. >> i appreciate that. what i would say in the early hearing on october so79sdz, one thing we did discover, this facility was not able to take the blows even of a small bomb that had gone off earlier, mr. nordstrom testified that this temporary consulate had been attacked twice and they had breached the walls. so, there was a lot of recognition it was insufficient facility. i think that is well in the committee's record. i thank you for bringing it up. we go to the gentleman from

florida, mr. mica. >> thank you. i have to tell the families we will continue to pursue this and all the facts need to be known about what took place and hold people accountable. next to the witnesses, thank you for your bravery and actually coming forward. again some of the commendable acts of the state department and employees you described. as everybody may know, my follow on my colleague's question about the report the accountability review board report. this is unclassified version. there is a classified version also that is available online. we have a responsibility under law to review these situations and to go to people who actually had firsthand knowledge.

>> megyn: we're trying to get a commercial break. we're getting lopsided democrats versus republicans. we'll try to rectify that and hear from more of mr. mica after the break. stay with us. ♪ to more efficient pick-ups. ♪ wireless is limitless.

[ female announcer ] from meeting customer needs... to meeting patient needs... ♪ to wireless is mitless.s... >>. >> megyn: we resume with the coverage of the benghazi hearing. >> time for mr. hicks to tell us. >> yes, sir. i monitored the discussions that

eric has testified about. from my arabic student status. when i aarrived in tripoli my understanding was the decisions had been settled and we were not to relitigate them in terms of number of personnel, security personnel at posts. i begin a process to attempt to relitigate them in mid-august and we held an e.a.c. meeting to discuss the meat. we unfortunately unable to return to that issue before 9/11 occurred. >> thank you. we now recognize the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. lynch for five minutes. >> megyn: we're going to even it out. same number of democrats and republicans as we watch this coverage. in the meantime, i want to get to adam housley. he had a critical interview with

a special ops guy and knew what went down on the night in question and has been following the testimony as it relates to these whistleblowers. >> getting in front someone in front of the camera to talk about benghazi is next to impossible. everything he has told has lined up what has been told. we gave some of highlights of what should have been the response that night. take a listen. [ gun shots ] >> according to special operator that watched the events unfold, multiple special forces member were available nearby in tripoli on the night of the benghazi attacks and were told to stand down. a team of marines and elite special forces team training in croatia could have made it to libya while stevens was still missing and before special

operations members were killed on a rooftop of the c.i.a. annex. >> we have the ability to load out, get on birds and fly there throughout at minimum stage. c-110 have the ability to be there, in my opinion in of a matter to four to six hours. >> reporter: insight into how the u.s. government and military reacted in the immediate hours afterward. he said the men on the ground put out a special call multiple times for all available assets to be moved into position. >> every asset, every element to respond and it becomes a global priority. >> reporter: was that given? >> that was given and the only reason was given because of the special operations. it has nothing do with the agency. it has nothing to do with the department of state. >> reporter: special operations gave the call sign?

>> yes. >> but they didn't move? >> assets did not move. >> reporter: quickly, we have more information, we'll extract them and clarify them for you throughout the day. >> megyn: don't go away. [ male announcer ] citibank's app for ipad

makes it easy for ann to manage her finances when she's on the go. even when she's not going anywhere. citi tablet apps. easier banking. standard at citibank.

helps him deposit his checks. jay also like it when mother nature helps him wash his car. mother nature's cool like that. citibank mobile check deposit. easier banking. standard at citibank. >>. chairman thank you very much. gentlemen, i wanted to thank you for being here today. without your statements there is tremendous information we wouldn't know. it's important you are giving us this information and we give condolences to the families. as we look at the information we have gotten today. we have two stand down decisions we have been able to discuss. one that mr. thompson told us about mr. hicks you told us mr. gibson.

i a member of the armed services committee and i am interested in the stand down order. we want to know who gave colonel gibson the order and why. i would like to review that stand down order since you were with him since he was receiving that. you told us there was a c-130 transport that had been provided and you had indicated that he should go to reinforce benghazi. colonel gibson was told to stand down and that plane landed without his team. let's start with review what is colonel gibson's team. what was the personnel. what were they doing in libya? >> they are the remaining members of the special security team, a group of special, 14 special forces, personnel assigned to protect embassy tripoli after the return and reestablishment of the embassy

in september of 2011. on the 1st of august, secretary of defense signed an order changing their status from being a security team to a training team and transferring the authority, their authority from the chief of missions, ambassador to general hamm. on august 6th, two members of that team were in a carjacking incident as they were driving earlier in the morning outside the compound. they had to use their weapons in order to escape that armed attack on their vehicle. in light of that incident, general hamm decided to drawdown the team, 14 personnel to four personnel. lieutenant wood and nine others,

lieutenant wood testified before the committee last october, left tripoli in the middle of the month. so, lieutenant colonel gibson and the others are remainder of that group. >> so the chain of command and they had been reduced. these are highly trained individuals with specialized skills that would have been useful in the situation in benghazi? >> absolutely. given the fact again that the personnel in benghazi were exhausted from a night of fighting against very capable opponents. >> now, do you know were y they were told to stand down, sn did colonel give you any understanding? >> i actually don't know why. >> is there any reason to believe that the situation in benghazi was over? there were a number of series of attacks that you described to us did you have any reason there was no more danger in benghazi?

>> no, there was every reason to continue to believe that our personnel were in danger. >> i got an article that appeared in u.s.a. this week and as early as last monday, major robert furman said the military's account that was first issued weeks after the attack hasn't changed. there was never any kind of stand-down order to anybody. that is pretty broad statement, anybody. what is your reaction to the quote by mr. furman? >> i can only repeat that colonel gibson he was not to proceed to board the airplane. >> so your firsthand experience standing next to colonel gibson on his way c-130 trance post and being told not to go, contradicts what mr. murfan is saying on behalf of the pentagon? >> yes, sir.

>> mr. hicks, did the embassy have a defense attache the role was to interface with the defense department? did you ask him that evening, were there any resources coming from the u.s. military and what was your ree action to his responses as the evening unfolded? >> my reaction was that, okay, we're on our own. we're going to have to try to pull this off with the resources we have available. >> were the libyans surprised? >> i don't know, but i think they were. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> before we go to mr. connolly, most people in the audience don't understand chief of mission authority, would you, as chief of missions, run us through who was under your chief of mission authority and who wasn't. who did you have command and control of. we're talking about military

assets because a lot of folks up here or hearing. >> megyn: fox news alert. we want to get you caught up. we've been watching testimony for two hours on capitol hill where there is a new push for answers into what happened the night four americans were murdered in a terrorist attack on our consulate in benghazi, libya. brand-new hour here of america live. i'm megyn kelly. let me tell you first. i understand it's irritating to watch a hearing and have to take commercial breaks. as it turns out t costs money to keep the fox news channel on the air, so we have to take them. we've been doing our best to bring you the news and pay the bills as well. so our apologies for the irritating nature of that, but welcome to cable television. we are hearing for the first time from two high ranking state department employees, both highly commended by the obama administration. their testimony challenges the administration's version of events in places, including the testimony of gregory hicks, the number two diplomat in libya under the late ambassador stevens, describing that night and how he tried send

reinforcements to benghazi but blocked by washington. he revealed he was never consulted before those infamous talking points were released to the u.n. ambassador, secretary rice, susan rice, and they never discussed it with him. james rosen joins us live now with more. james? >> good afternoon. already we are learning the contents of sensitive documents never quoted before and we heard one of the most detailed and emotionally charged accounts of benghazi yet to surface, from mark thompson who manual -- handled it, we have an e-mail he sent to a high ranking state department operations officer disclosing the f.b.i. had recommended a foreign emergency support team be sent to libya. but that under secretary of state patrick kennedy advised against that to the white house. they say it could not have arrived in time of the also, one law maker read from a previously undisclosed e-mail that was sent to top aides to then secretary

of state clinton, by beth jones, the acting atant secretary of state for the middle east, in which jones recounted her direct conversation with the libyan ambassador. >> this was sent on september 12, the day after benghazi and several days before ambassador rice's television appearance and i'll continue, when he said his government suspected that former gadhafi regime elements carried out the attacks, i told him, that the group that conducted the attacks is affiliated with islamic terrorists. >> that statement by beth jones flatly contradicted the false talking points that u.n. ambassador susan rice delivered on the 16th in which she spoke of a protesting mob that never existed. after greg hicks, the number two diplomat in libya under ambassador stevens provided a vivid account of his and others' heroic actions on 9-11, house

oversight committee, democrats sought to undermine a portion of his testimony where he recalled his pleas for military intervention. >> the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff said they simply could not get there quickly. mr. hicks, do you have any reason to question general dempsey's testimony before the senate? >> again, i was speaking from my perspective. >> i understand. >> on the ground in tripoli based on what the defense attache told me. he said two to three hours. >> okay. >> that there were no tankers. >> at various points two of these witnesses had to fight back tears. it has been an emotionally charged hearing, informative, and there are several hours left to go. >> megyn: we'll check back in momentarily. focus specifically on the military the last hour, when the americans in libya let washington know they were under attack. and what happened when people started questioning the

administration about its response. here is a little of what the witnesses have said on those points. >> i will quote lieutenant colonel gibson, he said, the first time in my career that a diplomat has more balls than somebody in the military. >> no other part of the counterterrorism bureau responsible for responding to a crisis. this was a crisis, my office was not involved in those subsequent meeting. >> the question i have about the arb, again, it's not what the arb has, it's what it doesn't have and that it stopped short of the very people that need to be asked those questions. >> megyn: like hillary clinton. the arb is the internal state department group, ordered by the state department, to look into what happened in benghazi and the one person they didn't talk to was the secretary of state who said the buck stops with her, but apparently so did the interviews. she gave testimony before congress, but the group tasked with telling us what went wrong in benghazi never spoke to the

secretary of state. there is a real question here about the administration botched the response in the wake of benghazi l it flat out lied to the american people and it's obvious, obvious to everyone now that we were inadequately prepared for what happened on september 11 of 2012. i want to get chris up here. digital politics editor. your thoughts so far on what we have seen in terms of the tone and the tenor. couple of the democrats, interestingly, wound up making some of the republicans' best points for them as they tried to cross examine these state department witnesses who, you know, got up there and said look, we're not political people. the story is what the story is and gave a little push back as we watched this unfold. >> sometimes in a hearing like this, you expect that the results will not match expectations. in this case, these witnesses, particularly mr. hicks, have

acquitted themselves in such a way that the prior rumors about what they were going to testify about have only been amplified in terms of their significance and their impact. they have been calm. their demeanor has been emotional at times, but they have been able to keep a clear narrative together and they've been able to describe this in a way that can't -- that hasn't been unwound by the democratic talking points on this. there is a clear set of talking points out there as democrats today are pushing back on this story line because it's potentially damaging to the current democratic president and it's also potentially very damaging to the woman who they would like to be the next democratic president, hillary clinton, and these guys in the face of a brutal partisan situation between republicans and democrats, these guys are acquitting themselves well. >> megyn: we saw eleanor holmes norton, democrat from dc, trying to get mark thompson to admit that the counterterrorism group wasn't completely cut out of the

meetings, that they did have a role and that they were in discussions after that attack on 9-11. and she wanted him to admit that because i think it's his boss submitted a written letter saying i was involved -- i wasn't in benghazi or libya on the night this happened, but i was involved in discussions there after. we saw mark thompson push back on her and say, look, my part of the counterterrorism bureau, he said, the part that responds to crises was kept out. not the whole bureau. i never said it was the entire counterterrorism bureau. i said my part which responds to crises, and that was the part he said that would have been the most effective. and it's interesting because you see sort of these democrats who are trying to rehabilitate the state department and so on and yet, wind up sparring with these guys who are experts about what actually did happen in the wake of benghazi and maybe walk away, you know, a little stunned at the line of questioning and how

it worked out. >> the democrats, you can sum up the democratic position as relates to this stuff and what hillary clinton had to say. at this point what does it matter? she was talking about was there a cover-up? what about the false talking points, all the things that brother rosen was talking about there, those things, well, to a certain extent, she's right. she was right. and the democrats are focusing on that and trying to make the discussion about the bogus talking points because what does it matter? but you know what definitely matters? could lives have been saved? could justice have been brought more swiftly to the attackers, those islam insist militants who raided the compound? could something have been done at all and on that hangs the question of the long-term consequence of this scandal. if people who could have saved lives or at least killed the attackers, even if it was after it was too late to save the americans, the doomed americans who were there, that becomes a real scandal. >> megyn: then there was a dramatic moment where tray goudie, republican, asked -- it

was gregory hicks, that's the guy who was a form deputy of the mission in libya. he was number two, became number one as soon as chris stevens was murdered, asked him, okay, so who is better to ask? what was your reaction when you saw susan rice, our u.n. ambassador go on five sunday talk shows and tell the world this was a spontaneous protest in response to a video and it wasn't preplanned and down playing the terror angle and here is that exchange. >> so fast forward, mr. hicks, to the sunday talk shows and ambassador susan rice. she blamed this attack on a video. in fact, she did it five different times. what was your reaction to that? >> i was stunned. my jaw dropped and i was embarrassed. >> megyn: i mean, you tell me whether -- what and the

administration do with that? they say he's a jerk, he's a liar, don't believe a man who cried overt ambassador's death. do we say, he's a partisan hack? what do we do with that. >> we feel bad for him because he's emotional because he lost his league and we feel bad for him, it's emotional. they used the word emotional a lot to indicate maybe he's not thinking so clearly. then there is the next span, which is the sub row spin which is, yes, there was spin after the fact, yes, there was a lighting, yes, there was half truths, yes, false talking points and yeah, that was political and that's not do. but remember that we did everything that we possibly could. the president and the secretary of state did everything that they possibly could in the time that was available. yeah, there was some phony bologna from susan rice afterwards, but whatever, mr. hicks is talking about, he's very emotional. but what hicks is saying and what makes the testimony so

damaging is the fact that there were option. he believed that there were options available to save lives or at least provide a definitive show of american strength instead of saying to these islamists militants that we would throw our hands up and allow americans in a u.s. facility to be murdered without response. >> megyn: we saw the one law maker try to play that sound bite from the director of national intelligence saying i felt bad for susan rice. she was just saying what we told her. it's true, she was reading talking points on those sunday talk shows from the intelligence community. talking points that had been heavily edited at her department, the state department's request. we have the e-mails in which victoria nuland, spokesman for the state department was saying, they're not good. i'm unhappy. get rid of these references to al-qaeda and so on and they kept cleaning them and cleaning them and cleaning them to the point where the substance of the remarks had been completely gutted. the message been changed from one of these are al-qaeda

terrorists who are attacking us in a terrorist attack to oh, these are spontaneous demonstrations. ignored the issue. it's not whether susan rice's fault. it's whether it's the state department's false for cleansing talking points that came from the intelligence community. >> one steve hayes our friend got ahold of that e-mail and knew that, the jig was up and that's why you get the admission that the talking points were political phony bologna. >> megyn: for it to be said it wasn't her fault, no it wasn't. the intel community did it. but they did it after state kept sobbing to their talking points over and over and finally again, according to the house report, quote, white house officials responded by stating the state department's concerns would have to be taken into account, which means do it. cleanse the talking points and off susan rice went. chris, thank you. >> you bet. >> megyn: we're going to bring you more, some of the highlights from the hearing just ahead. also colonel ollie north joins us live after the break. plus, just got word from

cleveland that one of the three young woman held for ten years is about to arrive home. what we expect to hear from her family in moments. more efficien. ♪ to more efficient pick-ups. ♪ wireless is limitless.

to prove to you that aleve is the better choice for him,

he's agreed to give it up. that's today? [ male announcer ] we'll be with him all day as he goes back to taking tylenol. that was okay, but after lunch my knee started to hurt again, and now i gotta take more pills. ♪ yup another pill stop. can i get my aleve back yet? ♪ for my pain, i want my aleve. ♪ [ male announcer ] this may, buy aleve and help those in need. [ female announcer ] from meeting customer needs...

to meeting patient needs... ♪ to wireless is mitless.s... >> megyn: back now to some of the highlights of the dramatic testimony we have heard from a hearing now underway into what the government knew about our attack, the attack on our consulate in benghazi on 9-11 of last year. three state department employees testifying about what happened that night and raising questions about the military response or lack thereof and why special forces were not deployed to libya sooner. this map shows the distance in hours that servicemen were from benghazi at the time of the attack. in addition, there were forces on hand in trip think. here is chaffetz questioning greg rye hicks, the number two man in libya, on that last hour. >> we determined that we needed

to send a second team from trip apply to secure the airport for the withdrawal of our personnel from benghazi after the mortar attack. >> were any of these u.s. military personnel not permitted to travel on a rescue mission or relief mission to benghazi? >> they were not authorized to travel. >> what happened with those personnel? >> they remained in tripoli with us. the medic went with the nurse to the hospital and his skills to the treatment of our -- and care of our wounded. >> how did the personnel react to being told to stand down? >> they were furious. >> megyn: ollie north, fox news military analyst with me now. good to he sue again. >> good to be with you. >> megyn: can you explain this in terms that we can all understand about what they're trying to tell us? because it looks like there were at least two teams they're talking about that they believe could have been deployed but weren't. which, by the way, the pentagon is pushing back on both

arguments saying it couldn't have happened logistically in time to make a difference. it couldn't have happened because we had limited air space and reppedness issues. >> let's back up just a moment to what happens before the attack begins. here is the thing that i find so stunning about this. having once had the job of coordinator for u.s. counterterrorism. there was no preparation whatsoever, no prepositions of assets, no alerts sent out, front warnings, as they would be called to our embassy or to the consulate that this is the anniversary of a 9-11-01 attack. i find that to be represencible and that comes from washington. >> megyn: let me just jump in. and, and, we are being told that -- we know now that the c.i.a. had chatter, that they had detected warnings, that there had been warnings that an attack was going to happen on 9-11. >> well, one of the other important parts of that whole

thing is the abysmal lack of human intelligence on our part leads to an ambassador who is not in his embassy, which is significantly better protected than the consulate in benghazi, or the annex itself. the questions ought to be asked is why was no threat warrant issued? why were no forces prepositioned? we know that we had a commander he is force in training up in the caucuses. i believe it was actually up in the former yugoslavia. there was nothing done to put forces in place that could respond very quickly. second of all, in the midst of the attack, the evidence of massive bureaucratic ineptness, misfeesence and no accountability. and falsifieder and that's the only right word to use. it's not just errors in the talking. the falsified talking points provided to people who were going to speak publicly about it

and the continued cover-up that occurs in this so-called report of the accountability review board. look, mike mullens is a former chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. tom pickerring is a former ambassador. >> megyn: they headed up the review of what happened. >> exactly. tom pickerring was the beneficiary of a massive increase in security when he was our ambassador in el salvador. i know. i wrote the order. it was signed by the national security advisor, sent to the president and they beefed up the security dramatically in el salvador because he was the target of a threat. i would have thought that tom pickerring would have had the integrity to say, what was done for me was not done for ambassador stevens and it should have been and here is the list of people who should be held accountable. >> megyn: and you got the arb, big pickerring and mullen who ran the review, they never talked to hillary clinton. why didn't they talk to hillary clinton? they say it was enough we talked to the assistant secretary level. well, how do you know it's enough if you don't actually

talk to her and find out what she knows? >> ultimately, you saw in the speeches that were being delivered by the democrats, having sat there for one of those hearings that went on for nine days, the speeches by the democrats trying to justify their position, trying to protect the administration are part of the reasons why this whole thing is probably not going to result in anything significant being done except people looking back and saying, gee, i wish we had done a better job. >> megyn: it makes you feel sad as you see these guys testify about their friend and what they went through and as they sat there wondering where is the back up and the help? where is the air support? where? >> odd all have been prepositioned. it's the anniversary of 9-11 and fort rest of your days and mine on earth that, will be a day of high threat. what was the ambassador doing there that was so important that he was given no protection at all? >> megyn: thank you, sir. >> my pleasure. >> megyn: couple of other big headlines to catch up on from

benghazi in moments. but we are also baiting a homecoming in cleveland of one of the women who was kept captive for ten years, in addition to a court hearing of the three brothers accused of kidnapping and keeping these women. stayer tuned investors could lose tens of thousands of dollars in hidden fees on their 401(k)s?! seriously? seriously. you don't believe it? search it. "401(k) hidden fees." then go to e-trade and roll over your old 401(k)s to a new e-trade retirement account. we have every type of retirement account. none of them charge annual fees and all of them offer low cost investments. why? because we're not your typical wall street firm that's why. so you keep more of your money. e-trade. less for us. more for you.

>> megyn: fox news alert. we are await ago court hearing in cleave land, ohio, where charges are expected to be filed against three men suspected of holding three women at least captive. the three we know about held for as long as a decade. they are looking into whether it ended with those three. investigators searching this home for new evidence today after one of the women managed to kick out a locked screen door and used a neighbor's phone to call police. we're also awaiting a homecoming for one of those three women and this will be the first we will hear from her family as the crowds are gathering to hear

maybe, maybe from gina dejesus herself. we're told a family member will speak out as they are reunited. they have been kept safe by police over the past 24, 36 hours. now they're going to go home. in the meantime, we're joined by jim, a retired f.b.i. supervisory special agent and a form f.b.i. profiler. jim, thank you for being here. and so now we're learning more about what went on in these ten years and the number of sightings that neighbors had. it wasn't just one, reportedly it was at least two, maybe more that they had of naked women crawling around the castro backyard and calling police. the police would come, they would knock on the door, no one would answer, they would leave. finally the guy put up a tarp over the backyard so nobody could see what he was doing. but we had somebody on yesterday said we're dealing with a sexual sadist, your thoughts? >> yes. i would think exactly.

before we even heard about his history with domestic violence, with his former partners, i would say this guy is a sexual sadist, narcististic and a control freak. that comes out in the reports by his former spouses of beatings where he broke their nose, ribs, caused constitutions on their brain. this is the kind of violent behavior that, unfortunately, these girls were probably subjected to at least in the beginning of their captivity. >> megyn: he would do that, in your judgment, in your professional expertise, just because it's something that he enjoys doing, hurting -- 'cause one would think you're in chains and inn a basement, you're not going to fight back to any great extent because you know the odds are against you. >> right. for sexual sadist, that's what actually turns them on. this is what drives them sexually. it's really a horrific thing. but fortunately, and it's a wonderful thing that these girls had each other. they stuck together. they probably supported each other. and now they're free and this is something we should definitely celebrate because it's a very rare occurrence.

>> megyn: how do you get three brothers who are all like minded on this, according to the police? >> well, it could be something in their genetics. any kind of behavior like this is a complicated mix of biopsychology and socialization. so it's that complicated mix. their genetics, what kind of permanents they had mixed with the experiences in their life and they decided to do this. these are obviously willful, long-term acts. any time along those ten years one of those brothers could have said, all right. this is enough. we shouldn't be doing this. but none of them did. they probably got off on it as well. >> megyn: ariel castro said to have attended at least one of the girls' memorial services, one of the vigils that they had for her, putting his arms around the family members. he's so sorry she's missing. meantime, the police say he had her tied up in his basement. is that unusual? >> well, it is unusual. typically these kinds of offenders do want to follow their own press, but getting that involved. there are instances where other

offenders have gotten involved with searches for the victims that they, in fact, kidnapped and killed. this is very blatant behavior that just speaks of him wanting to get off on that. the fact is that he probably really enjoyed the contact with the family, saw their suffering, and really got off on that as well. this is a very sick man. >> megyn: how does one become sexual sadist? is it abuse during childhood? believe me, i'm not making excuses for the guy. i want to try to understand how you can go from being born an innocent baby on this earth and turning into ariel castro. >> well, first of all, there is no evidence that being sexually abused or abused as a child turns you into a sexual sadist. that's a myth that should be dispelled. the fact is that it is a bunch of decisions, billions of little decisions in his mind because when he was born, yes, he probably was very innocent. he may not have been born with the same kind empathy you and i have, but he made decisions all through his life to take advantage of people, these things got reinforced, he got

away with them. he got away with the violence towards his wife or his former spouses. and this just reinforces that behavior to the point where he actually acted out and took one girl, then a few years later another girl, and then another young lady. so these events just reinforced in his mind his desires and his superiority. he thinks he's better than anybody else and he can use any human being that comes within his reach. >> megyn: wow. i know you say that these victims likely felt fear,elplesn ultimately would typically surrender to their fate and thankfully, at one point, amanda did not surrender and they're free today. they are damaged, but free. thank you. >> thank you very much. >> megyn: when we come back, we got new questions from the hearing that we are watching about those so-called talking points in benghazi. the talking points which are at the crux of the alleged cover-up here, what was told to the

american people about what happened in benghazi versus the truth. stay with us. >> did she talk to you before she went on the five sunday talk shows? >> no, sir. >> you were the highest ranking official in libya at the time. correct? >> yes, sir. >> and she did not bother to have a conversation with you before she went on national television?nn >> no, sir ting the bar high by going low. tdd# 1-800-345-2550 like offering schwab etfs tdd# 1-800-345-2550 with the lowest operating expenses tdd# 1-800-345-2550 in their respective lipper categories -- tdd# 1-800-345-2550 lower than ishares tdd# 1-800-345-2550 and vanguard. tdd# 1-800-345-2550 and with all our etfs commission-free tdd# 1-800-345-2550 when traded online in a schwab account, tdd# 1-800-345-2550 it leaves our investors with more money to invest. tdd# 1-800-345-2550 something they've come to count on with us. tdd# 1-800-345-2550 so as investors continue to set their portfolio goals high, tdd# 1-800-345-2550 we help keep their costs of investing low. tdd# 1-800-345-2550 give us a call and open an account today. tdd# 1-800-345-2550 carefully consider prospectus information, including tdd# 1-800-345-2550

investment objectives, risks, charges, and expenses. tdd# 1-800-345-2550 request a prospectus by calling schwab at 800-435-4000. tdd# 1-800-345-2550 read it carefully before investing. tdd# 1-800-345-2550 fees and expenses apply. tdd# 1-800-345-2550 investing involves risks, including loss of principal. tdd# 1-800-345-2550 and i have a massive heart attack right in my driveway. the doctor put me on a bayer aspirin regimen. [ male announcer ] be sure to talk to your doctor before you begin an aspirin regimen. go talk to your doctor. you're not indestructible anymore.

>> megyn: fox news alert. we are officially waiting for the jury to read its verdict that it has now reached in the case of jody arias. the jury in the case has reached a verdict and it will be read shortly. jurors got the case on friday afternoon. they deliberated for 7 1/2 hours on monday, 6 1/2 hours on tuesday, 2 1/2 hours today. they are seeking a first degree murder conviction. they want the death penalty against this woman who they say brutally, brutally murdered her lover in arizona. we will wait to see how the jury has ruled. they could also find not guilty. they could also find second degree murder is appropriate here, or manslaughter. we will wait to hear. the jury's got its verdict. that's good news because it's always unfortunate when you see a hung jury in a case like this with all of the amount of time

and money spent in the criminal justice system in trying to get to this point. the jury has done its job. got a verdict. we'll show it to you here live. stay tuned. >> back to our top story, lawmakers trying to get some answers about this administration's response to a terrorist attack on our consulate in benghazi. one of the many questions they are trying to drill down on is why our u.n. ambassador susan rice at the time blamed the attack on an anti-muslim youtube video where there was evidence of terrorism early on. from the get go, these witnesses testified they knew. i mean, they knew that this was terrorism from the moment it happened and yet, that's not the story that was told to the american people. here is congressman jim jordan asking gregory hicks, the number two guy in libya, he became number one when our ambassador was murdered, about a call he had with the state department, mr. hicks had, after susan rice went on all those sunday talk

shows. watch. >> isn't it also true the president of the united states al-qaeda you up and said, you know what, mr. hicks, you did an outstanding job under severe circumstances? >> he did call me, sir. >> and all that seems to change. you're getting all this -- all that seems to change and it seems to change in the phone call you were on that mr. goudie referenced in his questioning, the phone call he got from beth jones, is that accurate? >> phone call after the interview, i asked -- >> this is after secretary rice went on television and misled the american people. you're on the phone call with beth jones and it all seemed to change because you asked beth jones what? >> i asked her why the ambassador had said there was a demonstration when the embassy had reported only an attack n again, what kind of response did you get from beth jones? >> she said i don't know. >> but was it like you shouldn't be asking that question, you should be quiet. what was the sense you got? >> the sense i got was that i needed to stop the line of

questioning. >> megyn: joining me now, ambassador john bolton, former u.s. ambassador to the united nations and a fox news contributor. you had the job that susan rice had and, i mean -- look, we all know what she said on those sunday talk shows was not consistent with what they knew, with what the administration knew at the time. that's been made clear by these witnesses, by leaked e-mails, by the leaked initial version of the c.i.a. talking points which were then cleansed by the state department. but the line that those defending the administration today seem to be going for was it wasn't her fault. we saw the one democrat play the sound bite from the dni, director of national intelligence, jim clapper saying, i felt bad for susan rice because we gave her those talking points. well, who cleansed the talking points? it was state with the approval of the white house according to the e-mails that have been made available, and so you tell me, when you're u.n. ambassador, who

do you work for? >> i tell you one thing, i never read talking points put in front of me by the state department or anybody else. that's a lesson you learn early. i think susan has learned it now. and having been a u.n. ambassador, i would be the last person to tell you that post is an unimportant post. but the real issue here is not what susan rice said. it's what the president of the united states said several times, including to the u.n. general assembly and what secretary of state hillary clinton said several times, including on the return of the caskets bearing the four murdered americans, referring to the video and the demonstration. this was a line that the entire administration took from top to bottom and i think today, if you ever had any doubts that the government of the united states knew from the get-go what happened in benghazi, these witnesses have cleared this up. this was a terrorist attack. we knew it. there was no conflicting intelligence. there was no fog of war.

there was no confusion. there was no nothing except either ideological blindness to the continued threat of terrorism, or political concern about the impact of a terrorist attack when the president had said five days before al-qaeda is on the road to defeat. it's very stark now. >> megyn: i think we're making the same point, which is that susan rice worked for the state department and those talking points were provided to her as a result of consultations between the state department, intel community and the white house and the weekly standard, steve hayes laid out beautifully in a piece this weekend where they talk about how victoria nuland state department employee kept pushing back on the initial draft of the talking points, which came from the intel officials which referenced al-qaeda and terror, which talked about all the terrorist attack has had been happening in the region prior to the attack on our consulate and how they had been warning about that and she said, this is going to be used against the state department, victoria did, to try to make us look bad.

clean it up further. my bosses are still unhappy, she said. finally she wrote late in the night before susan rice went out, fill the recleansed draft does not resolve all of my issues and those of my building leadership and moments later, according to the house report, white house officials responded that the state department's concerns who have to be taken into account. i mean, is this nothing -- i mean, is this just okay, look, we just want to clean it up a little, or is this the crux of a cover-up of a terrorist attack? >> well, it could be a political cover-up. my view has long been, i hope it is a political cover-up for the sake of our national security because if it's a political cover-up, you can fix it. if it's ideological blindness, if it's the view before the attack, libya is fine, security is improving. political situation is great. no need to grant these requests for enhanced security. stop asking about it. and to say afterward that this

really wasn't a terrorist attack, if you can't recognize the threat of terrorism, you're never going to be able to defend against it. so i think what -- i've another victoria nuland a long time. i think she's an honest person. call her up there, put her under oath and ask her what superiors at the state department she was referring to. my experience under six secretaries of state is that their assistant has total abscess to them and those who they really report to. >> megyn: thank you for being here. >> thank you. >> megyn: lots of breaking news, including look at this, live in cleveland as gina dejesus arrives home to her family after ten years in captivity. this child was taken when she was 14 years old. now we're seeing the aerial shots on screen left. this appears to be a reporter trying to get a live shot ready on the right. we believe this is the car and she will be emerging from as she pulls into her family home and we saw some of the folks there.

you can see there for yourself, embracing as they get their long lost daughter, sister, cousin back after just presuming that something had happened to her. perhaps that she had been murdered. what a bittersweet day as you celebrate the life of your family member that you must have had doubts about. i mean, they had to wonder whether she had been killed and yet, knowing what she's been through these past ten years. reports of what she's lived through, but she is a survivor. she's a survivor. let's watch. [ cheers and applause ]

>> megyn: you can understand why she wants to keep her privacy and she doesn't want to be seen on camera right now. you can understand that, can't you? we had another kidnapping survivor join us yesterday and talk about how the best thing her family did for her when she was returned home after 17 days in captivity was keep her out of the press for all 20 years she kept out of the press and she said she believes that's what saved her, trying to establish some semblance of normalcy. you can imagine the amount of counseling and help this young woman is going to need. the reports are indeed that they were chained up at least for periods of time inside that house. i told you earlier about the neighbors reporting seeing naked women being forced to walk around in the backyard. some reportedly on a leash.

there were reports of perhaps another woman having been in that house and then disappeared. there are reports of up to five pregnancies resulting while they were in captivity, but only one six-year-old girl. so what happened to the other babies? i mean, just the -- also reports of physical abuse in addition to sexual abuse. it's been a horrific ten years. but shs home. she's home. she's alive. she survived and her family has her back and will help her start to heal now. back to cleveland as we have more news there. we have news for you now in arizona where the jury reached a verdict in the jodi arias murder trial. a case that has held the attention of the nation for months. this 32-year-old woman with the changing looks, school marm in court, vixen prior to, was on trial for murdering in the most

brutal fashion possible, her ex-boyfrienders travis alexander, in his home, in phoenix in 2008. prosecutors say she shot him in the head, stabbed him 27 times, slit his throat in a meticulously planned attack carried out while he was in the shower. after being arrested for the crime, she denied knowing anything about the murder. she later blamed the gruesome killing on two masked intruders, that she said attacked her and killed alexander. and then she admitted that she actually killed him. and she did that once the camera emerged in which pictures of her with his dead body surfaced. so it was kind of hard to maintain the masked intruder lie. but she said she did it in self-defense after he allegedly flew into a violent rage during an argument and we heard all sort of testimony who gave random testimony and how it affects somebody, but not necessarily jody arias. she's charged with first-degree murder. she faces the death penalty. the judge also allowed the jury to consider the lesser charge of

manslaughter if they believed her claims of self-defense and the jury got to cross examine the defendant in this case. they got it hand up their questions and have them read to her and heard answers. extraordinary process out there. dan springer live outside the courthouse where the jury is about to tell us the only verdict that matters and that's theirs in phoenix. dan? >> that's right. remember that jail house interview that she gave the very first one in which she said, quote, no jury will ever convict me. we will know in less than an hour if she was accurate or not. this jury took a long time, a lot of people thought this was an open and shut case, the first degree murder. but this jury, by my calculations, was back in deliberations for more than 15 hours over the course of two, 2 1/2 days. they have four option. not guilty, they have first-degree murder as another option. there are two different penalty option for first-degree murder. she can get 25 years to life or she could get the death penalty. more on that in a second.

or she could get second degree murder, or manslaughter which omened -- mentioned as another 20 years. if she is found guilty of first-degree murder, they will seek the death penalty. what will happen if that's the case is they will immediately go into a phase of the trial in which they call the aggravation phase, which they will decide or present arguments to whether there was an aggravating circumstance which could lead to the death penalty. that will take place presumably if she's found guilty of first-degree murder today. the jury may up eight men and four women. this was a long trial. they had a lot of evidence to go through. four-month trial. the cost of the defense to this county, she was on the witness stand, as you mentioned, for 18 days. an extraordinary process in which the jurors were able to ask her questions directly and she answered them, although they were questions in which the jury showed a lot of skepticism. that's why a lot of experts were saying, as they're watching this

trial that this was going to be a quick verdict. it was not. it was a long jury deliberation, 15 plus hours of deliberation. now we have a verdict and we'll hear what that verdict is within the hour. megyn? >> megyn: dan springer, we will watch it live right here. i want to bring in dr. bodien, a forensic pathologist and has been deeply involved in so many of these high profile murder cases. your thoughts on the fact that they've reached a verdict after what we believe is now 16 1/2 hours of deliberation. the trial went on for 64 actual trial days. >> i think this is a unique trial in which, as you -- the defendant not only testified, but answered all these questions you don't have murder cases where most of the lawyers don't want the defendant to testify. >> megyn: and questions from the jury. >> the jury questions, it's going to be interesting. i think, however, in the scheme of things, there were 40 murders today in the united states. most murders are caused by loved ones. jilted lovers, husband and wife,

family members. and apart from the sexual aspects of this case, which were listened to very carefully over the past few months. >> megyn: basically triple x rated. >> yeah. and the multiple injuries, this is no different than lots of other jilted lover situations, whether he died of one or 30 stab wounds. >> megyn: how important were the forensics in this case? >> here we knew what the cause of death was and the forensics weren't much involved here because it was clear what happened. this wasn't -- >> megyn: it eventually became clear. it wasn't clear initially as she was telling all these lies. >> she was telling all the lies. but usually when a murder is involved, or when there is a sexual escapade involved, part of the crime is lying about it. so that murder is often lied about what happened and she certainly lied a lot and was not

believable in a lot of ways. but that's going to be interesting to the way the jury looks at all her lies and the murders. >> megyn: we're going to pick it up after the break. hard break. we'll pick it up on the other side.

>> megyn: fox news alert. if you are just joining us, the jury has reached a verdict in the case of jodi arias and they will read us that verdict we expect within the next 60 minutes, 60 to 90 minutes. i believe it's between 4 and 4:30 p.m. eastern time, although one never knows. so let's just keep it here together. i want to bring back dr. michael bodien. one aspect of the forensics that was important in this case was whether she shot him in the head first or whether she did all the stabbings and the slitting of the throat first because it goes

to how much this poor man suffered. what did the evidence show? >> i think it's interesting and unfortunate that what the testimony was from the medical examiner is not what was in the autopsy report. when the autopsy is done, the gunshot -- >> megyn: he's the guy who does the autopsy? >> he does the autopsy, misses the brain. doesn't hit the brain, according to the autopsy report, and according to the police officer who was there at the time, talking to the medical examiner, but when it came up later in the trial because of hemousness and all, it wound up it did hit the brain and that it was the last gunshot wound, not the first gunshot wound -- >> megyn: if the gunshot wound to the head came last, then this man suffered and he suffered mightily, did he not? 27 to 30 stab wounds, slitting his throat ear to ear and that plays into whether, if she gets a first degree murder conviction, she's going to be sentenced to death. >> yes. and that goes to the hemou sness

and pain and suffering that the victim suffered. >> megyn: do you feel the state made its case on the heinousness of this crime? >> i don't think so. whether you die from one stab wound or ten, death is a death and they're all heinous in different ways, but this is not -- this is more the common type of jilted lover murder. >> megyn: she had been jilted. she went there with a gun, managed to have a last turn in the hay with her victim and then when he got in the shower, she killed him. and there is a question about whether that was just a woman scorned and whether the defense made the right move by keeping her on the stand for so long, the jury got to know her. got to go. we'll be right back

[ 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 plans, they pick up some of what medicare doesn't pay. and save you up to thousands of dollars in out-of-pocket 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 you'll never need a referral to see a specialist.

there's a range of plans to choose from, too. and they all travel with you. anywhere in the country. join the millions who have already enrolled 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 up to thousands in out-of-pocket costs... you'll be able choose any doctor who accepts medicare patients. and you never need referrals. 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. >> megyn: thanks for watching. i'm megyn kelly. >> shepard: a verdict is reached in the trial of jodi arias. the woman who admits she did kill her ex-boyfriend, admits she shot him and she remembers that. admits she stabbed him 27 times and slit his throat but can't remember that. who insists she was physically and mentally abused throughout the course of the latter part of their relationship. though she offered no evidence to support that. now the jury will decide whether she's guilty of murder in the first degree, which would carry with it the possibility of a death sentence, murder in the second degree,