is my last one. quickly mi jet pack. 3 o'clock barnes and nobles in virginia. >> and after the show, it will be monsters. >> right. hope he is okay. >> good morning, everybody. there is chaos after a massive earthquake rocks the coast of chile and several a reported dead. people scrambling for cover as items go shaking and flying off the shelves. i am bill hemmer. >> and i am martha maccallum. thousands of people were forced from their home and many terrified as the quake sirens go off. [sir [sirens ringing] >> the buildings are shaking,

fires breaking out and the effects felt in multiple countries throughout south america. will carr is live with the latest. >> chile is on an area that is called the ring of fire and that is because it is on an ark of v volcanos and fault line. the earthquake struck offshore, about 6 miles down and 50 miles from the down. 8.2 is a large earthquake so fears of tsumni warning. it knocked out power, and 300 prisoners from from a woman's

prison escaped and the president of chile has declared a state of emergency. there are no warnings on the left side of united states. >> chances of another earthquake? >> they are saying it could happen. there have been about 20 aftershocks, including a 6.2 in magnitude. some say as big as the earthquake was, it might not be the big one and there might be more stored energy in the fault line that is along northern chile. >> it occurred in an area that has had a lot of activity in the last two weeks. four magnitude 6 and larger earthquakes and many smallers ones have happened. >> chile has had devastating earthquakes in the past. including one in 2010 that

killed about 500 people. and back in 1960, bill, there was a 9.5 earthquake and that killed about 5,000 people. >> too much experience with that. thanks for the update from los angeles, will carr. this is a fox news alert. this is the biggest thing to watch on what could be pivotal in the benghazi case. michael morell is going to testify on the hill and he is expected to face tough questions on his past statements to lawmakers and the possibility he might have perjured himself. he drafted the sense discredited drafting points as the protest being the cause of the attack. despite the fact the cia's

station chief in libya said exactly the opposite: there were no protests and he made a large cry in making sure his voice was heard before susan rice went on tv and made her statements. in the end, as we know, sadly four americans were to lose their lives that night, including our ambassador chris stevens. catherine is here live. what brought or triggered this hearing today? >> what we know about the september 15th e-mail from the chieff oof station, who is the cia's chief on the ground. this was the first time the chief told the cia head quarters in washington there was no protest prior to the attack. this e-mail was sent to emphasis

and insist what you are saying in washington can't be supported by the facts on the grund. and based on the content of the september 15th e-mail from the chief of station, which is classifi classified, the chairman of the house committee told bill o'reilly he had no choice but to recall michael morell. >> there is disagreement over what he said in the past and what guys on the ground said. guys on the grund said it was a planned act and cased before. >> he is going explain what was this intelligence that was so overwhelming and conclusive that allowed him to override the reporting of the top u.s. intelligence officer on the

ground and other personal thatw >> that is the question. and what are we hearing about what the representatives want to ask him less than an hour from now? >> he is going to have to deflect on his key events, action to statements starting with november 2012. he was on a panel with the director of national intelligence and the head of the counter terrorism center and lawmakers asked who was behind the talking points and clapper said he had no idea and michael morell sat there silently even though he was the person with the pen in his hand and cut 50% of the talking point and lawmakers want to know if that style was meant to mislead the community. and in november 2012, three

republican senators met with michael morell and they said he blamed the fbi for the significant changes in the talking points and the three centers followed up the fbi and the bureau went ballistic. and republicans on the senate committee complain he misled them by saying these talking points were sent to the white house for fyi and not input or coordination. but when the talking points were reve revealed it showed white house and state involvement started with the earliest changes and michael morell was the changes. >> it will be interesting. >> less than an hour away from that investigation. bill o'reilly laying out why all-americans should care about this answer: >> someone misled the world

about the terror attack and a year later we don't know why. president obama was running for election during this and the administration was touting suck says. if the obama administration lied, that is an abuse of power. if the cia cooperated in the law that is an abuse of power. and as we know from watergate, abuses of power leads to bad things >> and chris stevens, the first u.s. diplomat killed and sean smith, a state department staffer, glen dortty and tiger woods working as security contractors. what do you think? will today's hearing answer the

question or do we need to hear even more? send us a tweet at bill hemmer or martha maccallum and you can talk to us on twitter for the n next hour. president obama taking a victory lap calling a news conference to say that right at the deadline the white house reached and surpassed their obamacare enrollment goal. >> last night the first open enrollment period came to an end. and despite several lost weeks out of the gate because of problems with the website, 7.1 million americans have now signed up for private insurance plans through these market places. 7.1. >> a lot of applause and excitement at the white house but conservative critics say

they believe the number doesn't mean what it appears. >> this is a phony number. this is wonderfully precise, you know? these guys go six months without any idea what the numbers and then and all of a sudden it is to a decimal point. 7.1. but it is meaningless because we don't know how many have paid and it is an enrollment number that is not enrollment. but the more important is how many were previously uninsured >> we will look at how accurate the number is and a political ramifications of that. >> and we have a busy morning as you can tell. former american hostage calling this a slap in the face with iran making a tormentor the country's new ambassador at the un and that is what iran wants.

there is comments from a former terrorist now diplomat. >> and an unbelievable story where a man takes a chainsaw to the neck and lives to tell the story. look at that coming up. >> gm's ceo is back on the hot seat apologizing to families of more than a dozen people that are desolating to a car defect that wasn't fixed for a decade. the mother of a justina pelletier who died is live here today in "america's newsroom." >> at first it was one. then a few. as you see, we are many and there is still more. this is just the tip of the iceberg. we are the people left behind when a loved one got into what was supposed to be a safe car. was supposed to be a safe car. get from alaska, they think salmon and energy. but the energy bp produces up here creates something else as well: jobs all over america. thousands of people here in alaska are working

to safely produce more energy. but that's just the start. to produce more from existing wells, we need advanced technology. that means hi-tech jobs in california and colorado. the oil moves through one of the world's largest pipelines. maintaining it means manufacturing jobs in the midwest. then we transport it with 4 state-of-the-art, double-hull tankers. some of the safest, most advanced ships in the world: built in san diego with a $1 billion investment. schhannon wooten laiura christi

james valentine >> massive fire in atlanta in

the buckhead section of the city. crews had to use caution of the size and the intense heat of the fire. luckily, this time, no injuries reported. the gm's ceo mary barra is set to be back on the hot seat for a second day facing a grilling from congress on the house side on a defective ignition switch that led to a dozen deaths and thousands of accidents. she apologized to family members and many were present >> i cannot turn back the clock, but as soon as i learned about the problem, we acted without hesitation and told the world we had a problem that needed to be fixed. we did so because whatever mistakes were made in the past, we will not stray from your

responsibilities. >> laura christian is here with us and her daughter was killed in a wreck. any satisfaction from the testimony yesterday? >> no, unfortunately, not. i didn't expect to hear anything. she refused to answer my questions the night before. >> you met with her the night before? >> all of us did. we sat down and told her the stories of what happened to our daughters and sons that were killed because of this cobalt defect in many cars. and i took the opportunity to ask questions and she gave me the same line she gave congress: this was under investigation and she was unable to speak to it.

>> what questions specifically did you ask her that you thought you needed to hear? >> well, i asked her if she would consider taking the cars off the road and park them until they are able to be fixed and she told me of course as long as you just have that one little key in the ignition these cars are safe. and i asked about the difference between the amount of pressure or torque that was need today turn the key into the accessory position and there is minimumal needed on these compared to others. she refused to speak to us about that. >> i heard a woman saying this was a waste of time. did you get that sense you wasted your time?

>> no, i think our time was well-spent as far as the victim's family. we came there to be seen. we most certainly were and this is going before congress because we need real reform and they need to see the real people behind that and why we need the reform. >> ten years. why would is take so long to fix a part that cost 57 cents? >> that is the ultimate question. i believe gm thought they would keep this buried and never bring it to light but we are more determined than they are. >> you are pushing for more transparency from the auto companies. what do you think that would do? >> with more information out there available to the public, we would spot the trends before.

with true trance transparency it is hard to hide anything. >> will you get that done >> slight. >> how would your daughter feel about what you are doing? >> they are cheering for us. they are very pleased at what we are trying to do here >> i am certain. laura christian, thank you for your time. stay strong. i know it is difficult. i wonder if this is a healing process yet again as you are in washington, d.c. for a second day. thank you for your time and spending that with us today. >> thank you. well, benghazi is not the only white house scandal that is getti getting its day on capital hill. the head of the atf is facing questions regarding fast and furious. >> and iran wants a terrorist

who took part in the attacks in 1979 wants him to be the new ambassador in united states and what the victims are saying and what the obama administration can do stop it >> it is like we are being slapped in the face again. it makes me cry for my country because we have been so nigh eve in terms of undering iran. in terms of undering iran. ♪ [ male announcer ] this m has an accomplished research and analytical group at his disposal. ♪ but even more pressive is how he puts it to work for his clients. ♪ morning. morning. thanks for meeting so early. oh, it's not a big deal at all. come on in. [ male announcer ] it's how edward jones makes sense of investing. ♪ hamburgid aboutalebi u.s. emba y

embassytru embassytrusttru terrorist

>> charles keating died in phoenix last night. no word on the exact cause. he was the former head of link lincolns saving and was convicted of defrauding thousands of bond holders.

he served five years in jail and the conviction was overturned later. charles keating was 90 years old. we wait for a very important hearing on capital hill. members of the house mmittee se current chief of the bureau of alcohol, tobacco and firearms, partly on why keep players in the fast and furious gun running scandal will have their jobs. william is live. the attorney general promised those responsible for fast and furious would be held accountable. has this happened to this day? >> no one lost their job and after 19 months it is like lee no one will. they helped transfer 2, 000 assault weapons to the mexican

cartell. dennis burke was a key player and violated the privacy act by leaking documents on a whistle blower. he violated the rules but the state bar only repremanded him and didn't suspend his license. others got off easier. all transfer with no loss of pay while the assistant director bill mccain refused to take the job while still working at atf. it was called fraud had it not been approved by their own agency who said they didn't know the rules. no discipline again >> and they will ask about another controversial operation as well, right?

>> yes, they created a monitored case program to prevent another embarrassment but operation fearless is just that. atf opened stores near schools and churches and attracted kids with video games and alcohol and played a formant to get a tattoo of a squid smoking and joint and then arrested him. they will answer questions on fast and furious and on lack of fearless and what they consider to be oversight. and jones will say we got criminals and guns off the street the programs are effective. >> president obama announcing the new obamacare numbers and what do they really tell us?

>> texting and walking can end up like that. the new technology apple just made that could end incidents like that forever. like that forever. &%sm ♪ i walk the line you know how painful heartburn can be. for fast, long lasting relief, use doctor recommended gaviscon®. only gaviscon® forms a protective barrier that helps block stomach acid from splashing up- relieving the pain quickly. try fast, long lasting gaviscon®. ♪

[ male announcer ] help brazil reduce its overall reliance on foreign imports with the launch of theountry's largest petrochemical operation. ♪ when emerson takes up the challenge, "it's never been done before" simply becomes consider it solved. emerson. ♪

okay.

9:30 here in new york city. about 30 minute away from what will be a pivotal bay benghazi matter. michael morell is going to testify on the hill. he is expected to be peppered with tough questionings on his role in the talking points pointing to a protest as the flict. and this is conflicting from the cia station chief in libya who said there were no protest before the attack. that starts in 30 minutes. republican lawmakers are crying foul as the president is malaysiai praising the administration for signing up 7.1 million. mccain and marco rubio are among them saying the problems have

nothing to do with the top number >> you have to get people who make their payment and once people realize what they are paying for comes with a high deductible and they cannot start using it for until then they will realize they are not in r slr -- insured -- >> the average policy is going to be costing 40% more for a policies that is not like the one you had and you don't like it as well and doesn't give you the same access you had. >> alan combs and brad blakeman are here. welcome. right now, you have this rock in a hard place in many ways. they were able to have the moment, brad, and say we said 7

million was success and we got there. huge applause. >> that is easy to do at the white house with a captive audience. but the american people know better. 7 million was promised, then denied and on the last day of registration they got the exact number. it was 7.1. this is a sham. and here is why: if the president were serious about the number and was truthful about the number you would follow the reagan principle trust verifies. who are the people? how old were they because you have to have young to pay for the old? >> jay carney said i am sorry we don't have breakdown data on this, alan. no breakdown data >> that is data from mckenzie

corporati corporation. kathleen sebelius said 80-90 percent have paid. why it is very easy for the other side to say they are a liar and try for the 51st time in congress to repeal something they have failed at something they have done 50 times. insanity is trying the same thing over and over again with no different result. please run against obamacare in the election and democrats ought to embrace it. too many democrats are afraid it. this is a successful program that more and more people are liking as the polls show. >> alan and the white house saying bringing it on. there is a new washington post poll showing people like this more than they did a few months. 48% like the plan. >> wait about the other number

and shoe to drop and that is the 47 million who don't have health care. >> that is not true >> the number of people who had health care that don't have health care now has doubled under this president. and they are self-insured. the cost of the program and the deductible is high and people will roll the dice and when they get sick, they will enroll >> this is misinformation. let me give you numbers. >> we are going to run on obamacare and we will not run on repealing it but replacing it. >> boehner said we are committed to appealing it. that is what republicans are saying. so you are singing a different tune than what the speaker saying. >> look, under this president, he is never going to say i

screwed up:. >> i think the proof is underpudding. people will talk in and say my plan is cheaper and they will vote for democrats. and people will also say my plan is more expensive and the daylight between the two will take all of the difference. and those numbers will be verified and we will see if the white house -- they have been verified and millions observation people have health care who didn't before. >> the number looks like 1 million who were uninsured before and that was the president's motivation from day one. there are people out there with no health insurance and we need to get it for them. so the best numbers are about # 1 million of 7 million are those folks. >> rand found 9 million people

bought plans separately who didn't have it, three million young adults parents plans and five million adults signed up for medicare. >> you have about 5-6 million who got booted off their plan. >> and many of them got subsidies. >> and they have to scramble. the republicans nevered cared about the 47 million until now. it has been 47 million. >> the vast number of people who have signed up are people who get free health care anyway. >> cbo says after ten years of the program there will be 18 million who didn't use to be cover. so that is a lot of money and shakeup. but if the republicans had a

better way to get there, maybe they should have said something a long time ago. thank you very much. good to see you both. that is an app for that. app apple filing a patton to void things like this. new technology allows users to display a live video feed of the surroundings making it ease oar to avoid a fountain or car in the street all while text because that is what you need on the phone >> into the pool at the mall. i don't like saying this next thing. think about this: taking a chainsaw to the neck. that is what happened to this guy: he lived to tell about it. look at that x-ray. a tree trimmer survived to tell his story will tell us next:

and iran look to make a former terrorist an ambassador at the united states. former hostages say it is the ultimate insult. >> there should have been an apology from iran and resitution for what we went through. they still consider it is a win-win situation for the united states. it is disgusting. it@e@8ñúñ÷@@@0@

>> this horrorifying sknt accident in pennsylvania. a tree pruner was cutting tree limbs and his chain saw slipped and the blade embedded in his neck. it happened outside of pittsburgh. a coworker climbed the man down and the police were able to take the motor out. doctors say it just missed his major arteries.

angels watching over him. this x-ray shows you how lucky he is. >> it sounds bad and that is what happened. a chainsaw in the neck sounds bad. he is lucky his coworker responded that quickly >> it sounds bad because it is bad! >> luckily they don't give us heavy equipment to play with during our couple hours out here. >> it wasn't his day. many of the 52 americans held, beaten and tortured for 440 days nearly 35 years ago and can't believe this. the u.s. embassy iran appointed

is being nomiinated. chuck scott was a diplomat during this crises: >> i don't see where we can justify. it is a slap in the face to the united states. the fact that it is an insult to our government, the obama administration, he was even nominated. >> jonah goldberg is here. how are you doing? you can understand how this is a slap in the face. is this going to happen? >> i don't know. we run into this with the un because it attracts a lot of bad people and we have had many of the various soviets and com

communist murders have come to speak there. this is an obvious insult to the united states. i don't think there is any way to get around that and no way to read this as a friendly gesture and this is part of the larger context of iran jerking or chain and doing these little jabs and insults to the united states of america >> but the way i read it, we can stop this. >> we can. >> it is a simple yes or no to grant him a visa. >> threes that is right. and we have a bipartisan group that is not sure about the visa. the state department's spokesperson makes it sound like a complex, science process that is out of their hands and they c cannot just make the yes or no.

and of course they can. if the white house wanted to say no they could in a minute flat. but john kerry and obama want tonigto do that >> you have the ongoing talks going on and does this upset this? >> john kerry as we saw yesterday with the news from the israeli talks is desperate to keep this going and his relevance and stature going. they believe they have good faith partners in peace in iran and they don't want to be in a situation of snubbing iran which in reality could be a reaction to the -- would be -- to the snub they are giving to us.

and this isn't the first one. they have been doing a lot to poke us in in the eye. a leader defense minister put a wreath at the former terrorist of the beirut bombing. john kerry and obama think the talks over the nuclear deal will work >> i don't think the administration will take this. can you imagine the hell they will pay? you want to talk about an open wound that will never heal. >> i agree that will politics are very bad for this administration if they do this and give this guy a visa. i don't think they want to give this guy a visa. but at the same time, if they

were on the obvious side of this equation, as you say, they would have denied this guy a visa already. instead they are hemming and w hawing and twiddling their th thumbs on this. >> and this guy has been an ambassador all over the world. australia, belgium, italy, he travels more than john kerry. >> being a host aage taker is le me mow's comrad during the mission. it tells you the nature of the government and iran. it is still a terrorist state. >> they are heroes in iran?

>> absolutely. anyone part of that administration is considered -- they are not ashamed of what they did. they consider it a point of national pride >> thank you, jonah. we will talk again. >> great to be here. thank you. combat pilot may see battle in a new way. how the army could use hd technology to locate enemys and hit the targets. >> and jitters around the world after the earthquake in chile. watch this: the basi [sirens sounding] [sirens sounding] [thinking] is it that time? the son picks up the check? [thinking] i'm still working. he's retired. i hope he's saving. i hope he saved enough. who matters most to you says the most about you. at massmutual we're owned by our policyowners, and they matter most to us.

whether you're just starting your 401(k) or you are ready for retirement, we'll help you get there. do you have a minute to think ok, how about thirty seconds? at comcast business our internet is fast. up to 5x faster than dsl from the phone company.

and our phone's better too. switch to comcast business internet. then add voice and tv for just $34.90 more per month. time to make the call. 800-501-6000 comcast business. built for business. serta perfect sleeper, through sunday, get $300 off and sealy posturepedic. plus, free delivery! save more green during mattress discounters red tag sale, through sunday. ♪ mattress discounters

minutes away from what will be a big day in the benghazi matter. michael morell is going to testify and he had a hand in drafting the talking points saying protest sparked the account despite the station chief in libya saying the exact opposite. this is his first public testimony on benghazi. starts at the top of the hour, 10 a.m. eastern time. military pilots may get a new view of the battle. they are working with lookede martin and they will be able to view and confirm targets in hd. they are used to looking at video like this. how does this new system change things for fighter pilots?

>> it has a much improved range or xr feature. it will provide high resolution pictures from further distances than before. we saw it in action while photographing a test in alabama. the pilot is taking out images including the camera and that machine gun in the pack of the pickup truck behind him. >> there is a pickup with a machine gun in the back. >> reporter: when we were standing there, the apache helicopter looked like a small speck in the sky and we could not hear it all.

>> this would help to keep people safer out there, right? >> exactly. it keeps the apache out of harm's way from fire and it may help pilots avoid those rare but tragic mistakes like this 2007 apache strike in baghdad that killed two news staff members whose camera was mistaken for a weapon. replacing the grainy images gives them better tools to cord nature surveillance. >> they will say focus on the green building with the red roof and they will see that. >> lockede martin is expecting

to have it available in 2017 on the apache. >> that could make a big difference. minutes away from testimony as the former cia deputy director, michael morell , careen right, is going to be in that room and at that table n matter of moments and you will see it live when we continue at the top of the hour. the top of the hour. then we gave each person a ribbon to show how many years that amount might last. i was trying to, like, pull it a little further. [ woman ] got me to 70 years old. i'm going have to rethink this thing. it's hard to imagin how much we'll need for a retirement that could last 3years or mor so maybe we need to approach things dferently, if we want to be ready for a longer retirement. ♪

martha: fox news alert. to capitol hill now. we are moments away from the start of a long-awaited hearing on benghazi. we'll mare for the first time from the man behind the infamous talking points. the former deputy director of the cia, mike morell. you can see him at the table. e. brand new hour starts now of "america's newsroom" i'm martha maccallum. bill: i'm bill hemmer. in the hot seat, is mike morell. he will be grilled on number of fronts including possibility he lied and passed states from

lied and passed states from . why that guidance, was ignored. martha: ail background on morell. he is a 33 year-veteran of the cia. twice served as acting director. he was deputy director from may of 2010 until august of last year. he was a key aid to president bausch on september 11th, 2001. he was one who ran analysis of possible connections between saddam hussein and al qaeda. rich lowery joins us, editor of "national review" and a fox news contributor. rich, good to have you here. >> hi, martha. martha: interesting to get started morell's back browned. he worked under republican president. he is now working with a firm that is connected to hillary clinton. and a lot of people raising questions about what might have been his political motivation perhaps to ignore the chief of station who said no, there was

no protest outside of that embassy or that consulate that evening? >> this is the great mystery from the beginning, right? how did the administration manage to ignore so much direct credible evidence from the very beginning that there was no protest and instead, put out the most politically convenient story you could come up with which is that this is protest. had nothing to do with al qaeda. just got out of hand. and, morell, as you point out, ignored the chief of station there in tripoli whose word in these sort of circumstances would carry overwhelming weight and somehow went with that more politically convenient story. martha: grow to the talking points. one day he have about the chief of station wrote an e-mail and said to morell and others in an e-mail, there was no pretest outside as we just mentioned before that attack, before the consulate came under attack there. then you have the fact that

three senators who sat down with morell and susan rice afterwards, it was sort of a attempt to kiss and makeup session with mccain and kelly ayote and lindsey graham, all senators, he apparently said to them, oh, i didn't change the talking points. that was not me. that was the fbi. as soon as he left the room they called the fbi. the fbi was ballistic in their words. we said we absolutely did not do that. no doubt i will be questioned today. >> the chief of station literally the day before the susan rice went on sunday shows with her infamous appearances said there is no protest. for entire first week saying there was no protest. people around morell have said, well, we were balancing other things including media reports. i don't know why you would value a media report over your chief of station? martha: yamana there are media reports going the other way immediately as well suggested there was no protest. then there was a meeting with mccain and couple other senators where he blamed the fbi

and the fbi immediately went ballistic. martha: there is whole legion the folks out there, rich, who shake their heads. they're in the hillary clinton camp. what difference does it make. four americans were killed. what difference does it make they say? >> one, the truth always makes a difference. as a democratic hygiene you want to get to the truth of this. if you're lying about such a major question, the american lives were lost right before an election. very politically sensitive time, that's a big deal. so it is right for the committee and for republicans to just keep their teeth in on this one and try to get to the bottom of it. martha: rich, stand by. bill is going to bring in mike baker. bill: mike with us and adam housley is been with us on the story from the beginning. adam is reporting from los angeles that chief of station in libya testified behind closed doors yesterday

for two hours. the focus, mike, will be on political motivation, who will politically benefit from this. they figure the testimony they got yesterday was quite beneficial. topics included conference calls from mike morell and cia chief and several others why the story kept changing. explain to our audience why the chief of station on the ground in tripoli in libya is so critical to all of this? >> well, i mean people have pointed this out over the past day or so. look, when you're the chief of station you're there for a reason. you're there because, you're the primary guy in that country and so your commentary, your insight, your opinions hold a great deal of weight here. regardless of what country you're talking about. now that is not to say. it is not black and white, right? the information coming out of the chief of station in tripoli as an example, remember, benghazi is a long ways away

from tripoli. so you would typically have a chief of base who would be operating in a remote facility like that. and so that information would be melded with what the cos is talking about and the other information streams. so it is not, i think what we're going to get here today, not to get off topic, if people are expecting some sort of concrete resolution as a result of mike morell's testimony, i think they're going to be disappointed just like with all the other steps that have taken place in this. bill: how come? >> this is going to be more, more information that's not going to necessarily give us anything. it is like holding a bucket of sand. it is, we're not capable to get our heads around it because there has been so much obfuscation. mike morell is a very good person and very experienced individual an the optic doesn't look good. bill: does morell take you to someone else or something else? make it quick. >> we have gotten lost in the

talking points issue. the biggest question been for operators, why didn't the commander-in-chief send up the assets? send up the assets. make the effort, if nothing else you secure the facility. you recover the bodies. even if you don't save those lives you made the effort you're supposed to make. that is the right thing to do and it was never done. that is the question we need to continue to focus on. bill: stand by, mike baker in washington. mike rogers, congressman pro michigan, outgoing congress from his announcement about a week ago. opening statements as we go live. >> explain to the public how this controversy developed. i understand you will do some of that in your opening statement as well. i want to first acknowledge the courageous american heroes on the ground in benghazi, both who lost their lives, ambassador chris stevens, information sister, sean smith and security officers, greg doherty and tyrone woods. and those who risked their lives to save their colleagues. each of these brave americans served on the frond lines defending american interests so

the rest of us could sleep safely at night. we lost some of the best among us on that terrible night. many of the brave officers who came to the rescue testified in closed session before the committee. these men took extraordinary measures to save their fellow americans, without their courage, their skill, terrorists would have killed other americans in benghazi that night for sure. most of these silent warriors prefer to stay unnamed and many still defend america in some of the most dangerous locations around the world. i thank mr. morell for volunteering to testify once again. a terrorist attack against u.s. facilities is a serious event and this committee has been conducting a thorough and detailed investigation over the last 19 months to understand exactly what happened. we have held over 17 member events, reviewed thousands of documents, mostly classified. interviewed the men on the ground that night. i want to focus on how this committee received inaccurate talking points and how the

administration used those talking points to perpetrate a false narrative about the attacks. after the attacks this committee immediately sought the truth. we received a closed briefing with ntcc director olson and then cia director petraeus on september 12th and september 13th respectively of. after the director then petraeus, briefing, some members of this committee sought guidance about what could be said publicly in an unclassified form. we knew that our constituents, the american people, certainly needed to know the truth about the attacks. unfortunately the talking points did not reflect the best information available. they did not mention that al qaeda-linked terrorists were involved in the attacks. through briefings and intelligence reports assessed they were involved. the talking points suggested that there had been a demonstration and that there had been, when there had been none and officers on the ground said so. talking points were so devoid of

facts or useful information that i in fact dismissed them, didn't use them. in fact on september 12th, 2012 i made a public statement that the attack had all the hallmarks of al qaeda. i don't believe any members of this committee actually used the talking points after the attacks. director petraeus described, they were useless. you indicated that you did not know susan rice would appear on the sunday talk shows on september 16th. your statement implies you would have written different talking points if you knew she would use them that particular day but susan rice did use them. as the spokesman for the united states government, she used them to tell the american people that there had been a protest spawned by an anti-islamic video. she made no mention of al qaeda. she focused on the protests. you told the deputy's committee on september 15th, the day before she appeared in public that the chief of station reported that there was no protest. public records, to hair the

public needs to hear exactly what those talking points, how those talking points were created. the american people should understand your role and the role of the intelligence committee in that process. i must conclude that the white house used your talking points to perpetrate its own misguided political agenda. i believe that the white house wanted america to believe al qaeda to be on the run. on they needed the attacks to be in response to an anti-islamic video. so the white house used your talking points to say so. but we knew that al qaeda and other affiliated terrorist organizations and militia groups participated in the attacks. officers on the ground knew there was no protest. if the american people had known that those officers knew, if the administration told them the truth the public would now know these terrorists were to blame. the public would better understand the threat we are facing today. and our intelligence and defense professionals could have been mobilized with greater speed to find and take these terrorists

off the battlefield. i don't believe the administration learned a lesson of this failure unfortunately. ambassador rice stated on february 23rd of this year she had no regrets. she still believed that the talking points represented, and i quote, the best information we had at the time. that is simply wrong by the materials and documentation in possession of this committee. the white house wants to ignore reality and perpetrate the fallacy that al qaeda and other islamic extremists are on the verge of defeat. this is very, very important issue. al qaeda is growing and planning operations against americans in their safe havens in libya, syria, iraq, and elsewhere. yet the administration continues to talk and act as if al qaeda is on the run. they foolishly focus on al qaeda, quote, core, but it makes no difference whether the terrorists who target americans are directed by al qaeda in pakistan or al qaeda in yemen. let's also not forget the state department ignored ample

warnings about the deteriorating threat environment in libya and rejected requests for additional security support from officers on the ground in benghazi. the defense department failed to posture itself to protect u.s. facility that is were in harm's way leading up to the 9/11 anniversary, despite ample warnings. benghazi highlights our failures and signals our future. we know the location of some of the benghazi attackers and we have, we have the capability and the capacity to get them. the administration has done neither, and unfortunately the longer this goes, the more risk they pose and the wrong blessage it sends to reinforce to those who perpetrated the attack. they refuse to act on what we know is true. al qaeda is a greater threat today than it was on september 10th, 2001. and it is most highlighted by the sheer volume of threat streams targeted at aspirational and in some case operational

details to attack americans and westerners, our allies. our nation must redouble our efforts against this threat. we must continue to confront the terrorist threat with every tool we have and with a clear mind what is at stake. it has been 19 months since our four americans were killed by terrorists and we still have not brought any to just tis. this is a disgrace. in the nine months i have remaining as chairman of this committee i will continue demanding that the administration take decisive action against the benghazi terrorists. before turning to our witness and recognize the ranking member for any opening comments. >> thank you, mr. chairman. based on announcement you are retiring at the end of this congressional term i do want to take this opportunity for your leadership on committee, commitment to bipartisanship and dedication to find owe solutions to the country's most pressing national security problems has transformed this committee into a shining example what good can

come when we work together in bipartisan way. >> thank you. >> we have wide diversity of opinions on this committee. i disagree with some of the things you just said but that doesn't mean we don't work along. we disagree, argue and focus on endgame how to get there together. each of us and all members respects each other even though we disagree on many issues. the by partisanship you fostered with a committee unparalled, passing cybersecurity legislation and proposing bipartisan nice have reform that ends bulge collection of metadata and increases privacy and civil liberty and priest serves a morn capability. the committee will miss you and your leadership. we have you until the end of this congress and we know you will continue to roll up your sleeves and continue the work americans expect from this bipartisan committee. we know that there were many heroes and many people that suffered gray loss that day. we mourn the deaths of

ambassador chris stevens, sean smith, tyrone woods and glen doherty and we honor the men and women who acted courageous to save the lives of others. no one left a comrade behind. we owe it to them and countless others to defend america to find out what went wrong to make sure it doesn't happen again which is what we're doing today. the independent accountability review board headed by admiral mike mullen and ambassador thomas pickering completed comprehensive have review of the situation and issued 29 recommendations. the government is implementing those recommendations especially when is it comes to increasing security. we in congress have combed through every aspect of this tragedy. we run down every allegation and every theory no matter how farfetched. in this committee alone we reviewed thousands of classified documents, watched frame after frame of security video and interviewed key intelligence individuals on the ground. we found areas that can and must be improved to prevent further tragedies but to date we found absolutely no inappropriate

motivations. specific to today's hearing we also found no conspiracies in the editing of the talking points, only never ending conspiracy theories. i was one who asked for talking points days immediately following the tragedy. i asked for them to aid our ability for this committee to communicate with the american people without revealing a classified information and what we knew would be a very media-driven issue. through exhaustive review we have only found evidence that the talking points weed ted to insure accuracy to check classification and to safeguard the investigation and eventual prosecution which has to be our ultimate goal. finding and holding accountable those who committed this terrible act and killed our americans. and this is the third time we have had mr. morell before this committee to talk about benghazi. my keelings with him mr. morell has been frank, honest and forthcoming and i expect he well do so again today. after today i hope we get back to our more pressing work on committee, overseeing intelligence community, passing intelligence authorization acts and improving cybersecurity and reforming fisa. thank you, mr. morell for be

willing to come before the committee even after you retired. your service to this country over 30 years has been exemplary and we owe people you and in cia led especially those employed in the hot spots around the world a tremendous debt of gratitude. mr. chairman, and i yield back. >> thank you for the kind words, mr. ruppersberger. we have continued to work in bipartisan way and continue to that you will be ranking member and i will be chairman. thank you for that. before turning to our witness, as this is an investigative hearing we're going to swear the witness in before he testifies. this is the prerogative of every committee chair it has not been custom here at the intelligence committee. so while it is always against the law to provide false statements to congress, the act of swearing in a witness impresses upon him or her the gravity of the proceeding and the need to tell the full and complete truth. so with that, i would ask mr. morell if you would please

stand. and hold on. make sure i get the, not too much longer. there it is. could you please raise your right hand. do you solemnly swear that the testimony you will give before this committee will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help me god. let the reflect the witness answered in affirmative. mr. morell can please be seated. i too want to thank you for your 30 plus years in the intelligence services. you have had a highly decorated and certainly distinguished career for those 30 years. it is important you have the opportunity to provide testimony today in front of the public. with that i would recognize you for your opening statement. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, and, mr. chairman and members of the committee, it's on.

mr. chairman and members of the committee, thank you very much for the invitation to be here today. as the chairman knows, when he asked me a few weeks ago to testify today on benghazi, my response was a quick and decisive yes. and as he also knows i specifically asked that this be an open hearing. why was i so decisive and why did i want this to be an open hearing? because much has been said and many allegations have been made about the handling of benghazi by the cia and its leadership, including me. much of this discussion has been inaccurate and the congress and the american people deserve to know the facts. i want to start by making my most important point of the day.

and it repeats something that both the chairman and the ranking member said. i want to take a minute to honor the patriots that america lost on that tragic night in benghazi. chris stevens, sean smith, tyrone woods, and glen doherty. they died serving their country. and it is paramount that we never lose sight of their service, their dedication, and their bravery. mr. chairman, i have submit ad comprehensive and detailed 23-page written statement. i respectfully request that it be placed in the record. it covers the development and evolution of cia's classified analysis of what happened in benghazi and my role in that

process. it has preparation of fame must unclassified talking points and my role in that process and it covers the specific allegations that have been levied against me. time does not permit me to go into all this detail during my oral statement. i urge anyone concerned about this issue to read the full written statement in order to get complete understanding what transpired. in fact i would ask with respect that the committee make my written statement available on its website. mr. chairman, i want both the committee and the american people to know that take very seriously the allegations about how the cia in general, and about how i in particular handled the analysis and talking points. as this committee knows. the ethical code under which

intelligence officers carry out their responsibilities calls for total object tivity, to call it like you see it. no matter what the audience wants to hear, no matter the implications for policy and no matter the political consequences. in short, speak truth to power. i served the central intelligence agency for 33 years and i as you abided by that code. i served six presidents, three republicans, and three democrats. i served as president george w. bush's first daily intelligence briefer and i served as president obama's deputy directer to and acting director of the cia. during this entire service i never allowed politics to influence what i said or did, never. i believe the facts in my

written statement make it clear, that neither i nor anyone else at the cia worked to alter the analysis or the talking points in a way that compromised our responsibility to the american people. we did not deliberately down play the role of terrorists in analysis nor the talking points. neither i nor anyone else at agency deliberately misled anyone in congress about the any aspects of the tragedy in benghazi. mr. chairman, none of what i just said should be interpreted to mean that we at the cia did everything right. no organization ever does. there are things we should have done differently. there are areas where the cia's performance and my own performance could have been done better.

none of our actions were influenced by in the intelligence process. none. let me touch on three different issues. one, cia analysts, the most talented and highly trained analysts in our government, concluded less than 24 hours after the attack that a protest had preceded the suit on the state department's facility in benghazi. they arrived at this initial judgment with booed reason and without any input from the white house, the state department, the or the cia leadership. their judgment was coordinated across the intelligence community, which meant that it was a judgment of the entire community, not just the cia. as you know, subsequent information revealed this judgment to be incorrect. but, and let me emphasize this, our analysts reached their

initial judgment because that is where the best available information at the time led them. not because of politics. indeed our analysts did what they are trained to do, make a judgement based on the best information at hand, make clear that that judgment might change as new information becomes available, and then adjust that judgment as necessary. that is what i expected of them. it is what you expect of them, and it is what the american people expect of them and it is exactly what they did. two, the cia's then most senior analyst on terrorism, an outstanding officer who this committee knows well, wrote the first draft of the unclassified talking points. near the white house, the state department, nor i did so as some have alleged. after our top analyst wrote the

first draft, many changes were made to the talking points over a period of time including some by agency officers, some by other agencies, and some by me. the process inside the cia to produce the talking points could have been better in several respects and i discussed this in detail in my written testimony. but to be very clear, the white house did not make any substantive changes to the talking points, nor did they ask me to make any substantive changes to the talking points. and while the talking points could have been better, the judgment that the attacks evolved from a protest was fully consistent with the intelligence community's classified analysis at the time. three, on the morning that heed ted the talking points, our

station -- heed ted the talking points our station chief in tripoli, a intelligence officer who i have a great deal of respect, sent his daily update to the cia headquarters addressing the ongoing security situation in libya. this email has rightly received some attention and let me address it. there was a line toward the end of the email that claims the attack in benghazi was, and i quote, not,/not escalation of a protest, end quote. this email was received by my staff and by a number of other officials at the agency. as the record indicates my actions in response to the station chief's email were appropriate and consistent with my responsibilities as deputy director. i wanted to get the analysis right and to make sure that the right people knew about the station chief's views. upon reading the station chief's

email, i immediately recognized the discrepancy between the station chief's view and the judgment of our analysts. i asked for more information from the station chief and i gave policymakers a head's up on the issue. i asked our analyst to revisit their judgment, based on the station chief's comments and to do so quickly. they did that and based on the totality of the information available to them, they stuck to their initial conclusion. mr. chairman, i did not hide nor did i down play the station chief's comment as some have suggested. in fact i did just the opposite. i addressed this critical difference of opinion immediately and appropriately. mr. chairman, i want to make two final points. first, i take what happened in benghazi very seriously and very

personally. as deputy director and acting director of an agency that lost a number of brave men and women on my watch, no one wanted to know more than i exactly what led to the attack, how we could have responded better, and what we could do to minimize the chances of a tragedy like this happening again. second, as washington discusses this important issue, we ought to leave politics out of it, plain and simple. since leaving government i have had the opportunity to speak with many americans around the country about the very serious national security threats facing the united states and the essential role our intelligence community plays in protecting americans from those threats. very often i am asked about the tragedy in benghazi. while those who have engaged me on this issue want to know how this happened, they have made

very clear to me there is no room for politics in any discussion about the death of four brave americans. i could not agree more. mr. chairman, that concludes my opening statement. i look forward to answering all of your questions. >> thank you very much. mr. morell. i asked several of these questions in closed session previously. i think it is important to ask again now that you're before the american people in open session. our committee has in our possession some 4,000 pages of intelligence communique, cables assessments highlighting the deteriorating security environment in benghazi prior to the september 11th, 2012, attack. are you familiar with the ic's extensive threat reporting in benghazi before the attack? >> yes, sir, i am. >> are you familiar with the attempted murder of the british ambassador in june 2012 by islamic militants in benghazi? >> yes, sir. >> are you aware that the british pulled out all diplomatic officials out of benghazi in response to that

attack. >> yes i am. >> the committee has documentation that the intelligence committee was actively tracking known terrorists in benghazi prior to the at act. were you i aware of that? >> yes, sir. >> we have received testimony from several security officers who were stationed in benghazi that security upgrade were made at the cia annex in response to threat conditions. were you aware of that? >> yes, sir. >> the committee has informed the cia officials on the browned in libya had concerns about colocating with the state department at the temporary mission facility given the physical security gaps at the facility and the threat environment in benghazi. are you familiar with that? >> i'm familiar with that now. i was not familiar with that at the time. >> so you were not familiar that that, some of those assessments happened in august? >> i think it was actually a little earlier than that but yes. >> july or august maybe? >> yes, sir. >> were you aware that the state department officials had a discussion with cia officers about overnighting at the annex,

the week of the attack due to the threat and physical security concerns at the temporary mission facility? >> i was not aware of that? >> were you aware that the terrorist attack in benghazi on september 11th, 2012, involved military-style movements, blocking manuevers, rpgs and accurate mortar fire that required extensive training and prepositioning? >> yes, sir. >> in your role as cia deputy director did you value the opinion of your chiefs of station? >> you betcha. >> in your statement you said that the chief of station indicated to you on september 15th, that there was no protest and the attack was not opportunistic. chief's assessment was based on his conversations with eyewitness, the security officers, who were in benghazi, the regional security officer on the ground, and the political officers who were in tripoli. you understand how maybe a low level analyst making a mistake but what concerns the committee and i think the investigators were that the very fact of your

distinguished career. you rose through the ranks as one of the best analysts, best intelligence agency on earth because of your expert tears and your instincts. you became director of intelligence nancys. the top analyst at cia you were with president bush in florida on september 11th, 2001, and told him immediately that your gut instinct was that osama bin laden was responsible for the september 11th attacks. so help me understand, help our investigators understand, if you will, knowing all of the information, you could possibly come to the conclusion that this was, that this coordinated assault on september 11th that killed four americans was anything other than a terrorist attack? >> congressman, i would say a number of things. first of all, the analysts on the 13th of september produced a piece of analysis that said that the attack in

benghazi evolved spontaneously from a protest as you know. that judgment by the analysts was based on a number of press reports and intelligence reports saying there was a protest. including, including one intelligence report from our station in benghazi. at the time the analyst made that judgment, there was not a single piece of information available to the analysts saying there was not a protest. so they made that judgment on the 13th. when i received the station chief's email on the morning of the 15th, as i said i noticed the discrepancy. the station chief in his email said that there were two reasons why he thought there was not a protest. the first reason he gave was that there were press reports

saying there was no protest. i personally did not find that reason compelling. because there were quite frankly press reports saying that there were protests. the second reason he behave, the second reason he gave in that email was his officers from benghazi base, when they went to rescue their state department colleagues at the state department facility did not see a protest when they arrived. that was not compelling to me either because they did not arrive until an hour after the attack started. and it is, quite possible, quite likely that any protests would have dissipate the by then. and third, in my mind, was the report from the previous day sent in by station saying there was a protest. so i felt, i felt that if the analysts were going to relook at their judgment made just two days before that they needed more information from the

station chief on why he thought what he thought. and that's what i asked for that morning, was for him to go back and produce a piece of paper that provided more detail on why he believed there to be no protest. he did that in 24 hours. now, the other thing i did that morning, given the importance of this issue, was to let my colleagues on the deputy's committee meeting know that the station chief had a different view. that that view was different from the analysts and that they were, and that we were working to sort it out and that we would get back to them. that's what happened. that's what i did. >> on november 15th, 2012, when you appeared before this committee with director clapper and director olsen to discuss the benghazi attacks i asked at that time why the talking points had been changed to remove any references to al qaeda. mr. clapper answered for the panel that he did not know. i was curious you were sitting on the sail panel. certainly heard the question but you didn't say anything.

can you tell me why? >> first of all at that time i did not know who removed the reference to al qaeda. and i had a similar exchange with senator burr on the senate intelligence committee on this issue. so at the time i did not know. but to be fair and in retrospect what i wish i would have done was to say to you, chairman, i do not know who took al qaeda out of the talking points but you should know that myself made a number of changes to the points. that's what i should have said. i didn't. >> and, so you just said earlier there was no coordination with you and the white house what those talking points would look like, is that correct? >> so the talking points were sent to the white house. the white house, the national security staff, actually, the national security staff suggested three changes. all of them were editorial in nature. none of them were substantive.

>> i have a, chart, easel i like to put up. i hope you can read that. we're going to give you a copy at the desk just to refresh your memory here. maybe you can help us understand this. this is an enlarged copy of the draft with your handwriting and your notes on the memo itself. and it has a list of names at the, in the bottom right corner. can you -- absolutely can. >> this brings back memories. >> i'm sure it did. can you go down the list of names. one ever the questions the investigators had the list of names at the time you were drafting it at least you were in some contact or concerned or would have to run it through these individual? can you walk through that list and tell us who those individual were at the time you were editing these talking points? >> yeah. can i give a little bit of

background, mr. chairman? >> sure. so, i was made aware of the talking points late in the afternoon on friday the 14th. when i was made aware of the talking points and i was shown the current draft of the talking points, i reacted very strongly to the inclusion of the warning language in the talking points. and i reacted strongly to that warning language because, quite frankly, i felt it wasn't responsive to the committee's request about what happened in benghazi on the 11th and more importantly, i thought it was an effort by the central intelligence agency to make it look like we had warned and to shift any blame, responsibility for the attack to the state department and it did not give the state department any opportunity to say what they did with the warnings. so i didn't think the warning language should be in there. i made a decision at that

moment, that when i got these talking points i was going to take that warning language out. so the next morning, saturday morning, i come in and my executive assistant tells me that state department is very upset about the warning language as well and that as a result, the talking points are in limbo, they're stuck. he also tells me because of that the then deputy national security advisor dennis mack dunn mcdonough, wants to talk at the deputy's meeting next morning. we have the deputy's meeting and dennis never raises the talking points. at the end ever the meeting dennis goes around the table and gives everybody around the horn because we were on a sifts -- >> i'm sorry, dennis? >> denis mcdonough national security advisor at the time. >> at the time. now current -- >> current white house chief of

staff. gave each of us opportunity to say one more thing. what i said at that point was, look, i'm aware that there are inneragency concerns with the talking points. i have my own concerns with the talking points. i will edit them and send them back around for a final coordination before we send them to the committee. what you're looking at here is what i did. i'm responsible for the changes on this piece of paper. the names you see are the names of the individuals who i wanted to send the talking points to one more time before we sent them to you. so, let me go through them. so first, you see, ncs, ndi. what i wanted to make sure that the final version of the talking points were okay from the perspective of our operations officers and from the perspective of our analysts, and i was most interested in knowing that they were okay from the perspective of the director of ota, who you know, that you and

i have both great respect for. then let's go down the names. robert cardillo was, was and is the number three in the office of the director of national intelligence. he represents the dni at deputy's meetings. alan pino was the national intelligence officer for the middle east. he was at that deputy's meeting. gnat olson, was and is the director of the national counterterrorism center -- nat. jake sullivan was then the then head of policy planning at state department and is now the vice president's national security advisor. mark guilano was head of the fbi's national security division. lisa monaco was head of the department of justice's national security division and ben rhodes was the spokesperson for the national security council staff. >> so during any of those

conversations with anyone on that list, no one, including the spokesperson for the national security council indicated that they needed to be changes or any other, for any reason whatsoever? >> so, i never spoke to any of these people. we only sent them an email. the changes that were suggested by the national security staff was at that point, at that point, they had made two suggestions earlier in the process before i was even aware that the talking points existed. but at that point in the process, the only change that the national security staff suggested was a change suggested by ben rhodes to change the word, consulate, to diplomatic post and he suggested that change for accuracy purposes since it was technically not a consulate. that is the only change that was suggested at that time to the

talking points. >> did anyone tell you that the talking points were going to be used for susan rice? >> no, sir. >> and the ambassador at the united nations if. >> no, sir. >> did anyone tell you in the subsequent days on september 15th once you realized there was a fairly extensive description of why the conclusion was that it was not a protest on the 15th, did that information ever make it into the hands of the individual who would have provided those talking points to susan rice? >> i'm sorry, sir, i don't follow? >> on september 15th your chief of station sent a very detailed communication to you and your staff indicating all of the reasons he believed that this was an extremist attack, that was, had some level of preplanning. did that information ever make it to the individuals on the list? did they ever hear about this conversation from you or from the agency? >> yes. so, the detailed email sent by the chief of station on the

morning of the 16th, what i did with that was two things of the first thing i did with that was immediately send it to the analysts to say, so now what do you think? and the analysts responded to that emailings hours later saying look we're sticking with our judgment. the second thing i did was to send that document to director petraeus and i think my note to him said something like, sir, i do not know what to make of this discrepancy between the station chief and the analysts. i've asked the analysts to look at it and i believe his response was, well, let's see what the analysts say. i do know that either the monday or tuesday of the following week, just as i had given the deputies a head's up this was an issue, i told the deputies orally that the analysts had looked at the issue and they were sticking with their judgment there had been a protest. >> so all of your training, all of your experience, your gut

reaction, did you believe that was the right decision? >> so i believed what my analysts said, that there was a protest. i also believed it to be a terrorist attack. you see we never, we never saw those two things as mutually exclusive. and so, i believed both of those at the same time. >> knowing what you know now would you have been surprised many of the eyewitnesses we have talked to said they were surprised by the narrative on sunday, the 16th? they were shocked, members of our organization that were, i think the word was shocked? >> yeah, i'm a little surprised by that quite frankly because if they were members of my organization then they would have seen the analysis written on the 13th that said there was a protest and said the attack evolved spontaneously from the protests.

if they were shocked on sunday when they heard that, they should have been shocked on thursday the 13th when they read it. >> and you are familiar with the executive, on the 12th, something that i received in red, did say that it was likely not an opportunistic, it was because of the description of the armed insurgency, that in fact on the 12th was in fact on that day? so there was a different narrative from the folks on the ground than there was in analysts here. you can imagine how that creates confusion in the investigators and why some might draw that conclusion in the height of the political campaign that maybe something doesn't look like right here given folks on the ground and testimony of folks on the ground was completely different from the analytical product. including on the 15th which was very detailed e-mailed highlighting differences of opinion on this particular case from the folks who were on the

ground during the event? >> chairman, let me actually read you what that piece on the 12th said. it said, the presence of armed assailants from the incident's outset suggests this was an intentional sought and not escalation of a peaceful protest. very interesting. here's what really happened though. so the analysts who wrote the piece in the very, very early morning hours of the 12th, mind you the attacks had just occurred and the analysts were putting together what we call a situation report, when the analysts finished with the piece and when the analysts went home, that sentence was not in there. that sentence was added by one ever the editors after the analysts left. the editor said that she thought there needed to be a bottom line. she was a trained military analyst and she wrote that sentence.

when the analysts came in the next morning, they were very unhappy that that sentence had been added and they complained about the addition of that sentence. so that's what happened. it was a bureaucratic, it was a bureaucratic mistake. no politics. i can certainly understand the confusion it created and in retrospect what we probably should have done was when we wrote the piece on the 13th, was to make it clear hi the language evolved from what was said on the 12th to get rid of that confusion, i agree with you 100%. >> i'm not sure i call it a bureaucratic mistake if the analyst was right. >> that analyst, but that analyst was not an analyst, w not a counterterrorism analyst, was not an analyst on benghazi. was not looking at issue. she was acting as an editor. she added, she add adjudgement that she had no right to add.

>> maybe, maybe a gut training. in your time you can ask the question. i just want to ask the question, we have a lot of questions here, i want to pass off to members and i have some at the end. at anytime did you have any verbal conversation with anybody at the white house about what the nature of those talking points were and what they needed to look like? >> no, sir. >> at anytime did you have any conversation with anybody at the white house and i mean anybody, that had anything to do with preparing susan rice forgoing out and being the face for america on that september 16th? >> no, sir. in fact i didn't even know she was going to be on the sunday shows. >> no one asked you to prepare talking points for her? >> no, sir. >> no one asked the agency, either through the director or yourself to prepare any documents for her? >> no, sir. >> was she briefed by the agency or had, information or materials available from all of the materials we discussed, did she

have any of those materials before xi went on -- >> i believe she had the talk points. >> just the talking points? >> i believe she had the talking points but she would have also had access to all the intelligence information that she had received in the days before. >> would that have included this september 15th analysis from your chief of station on the ground? >> no. >> and why not? >> because that wasn't disseminated outside of cia. >> don't you think that was an important document to get in the hand of someone who is going to brief the country on what was actually happening on the ground. >> like i said, like i said, he gave two reasons why he believed what he believed. like i said, i did not find either one of them compelling. like i said, i asked him for more information. it took him 24 hours to produce that. once he produced that, i asked the analysts to relook at their judgment. they did within hours. they stuck to their judgment. and like i said, i did give the

deputies and oral heads up at the station chief had a different view. >> i have more questions. i know there's a lot of folks that want to ask questions. i will get back in second round if i may. >> mr. chairman, mr. schiff had to go to a hearing. i would like to be in regular order but give my time at this point in time and go back to regular order. bill: at one point there a moment ago i believed it to be a protest. i also believed it to be a terrorist attack. word from mike morell. there is lot we've gone over the past 52 minutes or so. we want to do a little analysis as we step away from the hearing. of the martha has that now. martha: military analyst general jack keane and former vice-chair of the army. general, you've been watching all of this, what do you think? >> well, first of all the cia main a huge mistake doing unclassified talking points.

then they lost control of the content. when they're producing classified information and reports, those reports stand. and that's number one. number two, they were absolutely on the mark within less than 24 hours that aas, ansar al sharia was responsible for the attack on the consulate and they were dead wrong in suggesting that protests or demonstrators were a part of this. what still mystifies me and i think, you know, mike morell has a great reputation in government service and i think what he is trying to tell us is that in a sense, he got contrary information from the station chief whose on the ground, talking to the security people at the consulate. if there had been a protest, everybody would have known about it because what was happening in cairo. those events would have been connected. if there had been a protest with people with west, everybody would have known about it. so it mystifies me and i think he is implaying that -- implying

that his mistake was going with the analysts in langley as opposed to going with the station chief and not forcing a change in those talking points as a result of that. martha: it's a great point. one of the things that find very interesting is that he did want to dismiss apparently that report from the chief of station on the ground and he claims it was because that chief of station told him that he was basing his opinion on, mostly on media reports. sew said he didn't feel like this was substantial enough reason to, you know, go with that and to include that part of the story in what was sent out with the talking points and what was sent to the white house. i mean, what do you think of that? he said, look, he based it on information that didn't think was that credible? that is what he said. >> well, it is commonly known i think that the cia analysts reports that produced the original assessment of protest

demonstration existing also was drawn from sources that were largely libyan, some of them media, and some of them obviously some other sources in government, et cetera, that contributed to that misleading report. he was probably using those same sources and may in fact have been channeling that information to langley. but as i understood the testimony, i do believe that at some point when mike morell asked him to provide a more detailed report, that that report came forward as a result of discussing, the detailed report came as a result of discussing with the security people and others who were at the consulate the night of the incident. that report definitely took a contrarian view from the analysts in washington. at that point why didn't the cia separate themselves from that analyst at that point and provide different information to the people who were participating in development of talking points. martha: yeah. >> another ink i'd add, about susan rice on the sunday talk

shows, she is privy to all of the information from the night of the incident in the state department in their own situation room and operations center. she had a huge amount of information available to her as an official in the state department. martha: all right. up against a break. jack, we've got to go, thank you very much. bill: morell said he did not mow she would be appear on the sunday shows as she made the rounds of all five. he did not speak to anyone at the white house about benghazi talking points, nor did he give them to susan rice before those sunday show appearances. more on this hearing in a moment. >> signals intelligence indicated there was a demonstration.

>> while we were watching the hearing on benghazi breaking news from the supreme court. the court striking down limits on contributions to campaigning saying americans have the right

to give the funds they desire. >> a lot to chew over from the benghazi testimony and "happening now" will talk than up. thanks for being with us. >> a fox news alert. and the man behind the discreted benghazi talking points getting grilled on capital hill. i am jon scott. >> and i am jenna lee. the former deputy of the cia defending his action on days after the benghazi attack. now, michael morell is denying he cooked the books on the attack and covered it up. those have been the allegations and he said they are not true and rejects claims that prolitical pressure to protect the president and secretary of state hilary cli