>> i think what we learned here is -- well, nothing, frankly. that we didn't know already. the security situation in libya was dangerous. >> right. >> without question. would you say that ambassador stevens was unaware of any aspect of that? >> no, would not. i think he was very aware. >> he knew the security situation in libya quite well. >> that's right. >> yet, i want to be clear on this. in hisomsn÷ communications with, and he had many, even if he didn't have your e-mail address -- did he ever say, you know -- did he raise the security issue directly with you? >> no, he did not. >> and obviously he chose to go to benghazi. he, as you have described earlier, as, all across the world today, diplomats are weighing the risks and the benefits in a lot of dangerous places, and he had to do that. and he chose to go toz)v9ñ beng.

>> he did, and congressman, ambassadors in the countries they are representing the united states, do not, as a practice, ask permission from the state department to travel in the country where they are stationed. >> as well they should not. they need to be in charge of their country. also point out on the question of e-mails and which ones you received and haven't received, unfortunately, the state department, which has been spending an enormous amount of time producing documents for this committee -- cannot produce thousands of e-mails at the drop of a hat, and the committee chose to prioritize your e-mails and also mess abedin's e-mails, cheryl's e-mails, sidney blumenthal's e-mails to you. to the chose to prioritize those e-mails over the others. so the state department is trying to get the miami miami buts it's a question of the

priority of the committee, and the last point i want to make, a lot of accusations made back anding for about things that have been said that were or were not true. the one thing that was said in this hearing that is clearly the farthest from the truth is this is not a prosecution. if you listen to the other side, this is unquestionably exactly that. a prosecution. i mean, i ask viewers to just go back and listen to chairman gowdy's questioning of you before the first break and tell me that's not a prosecution. and i think, again -- i don't know if shame, embarrassment, whatever word you wish to which is -- shouldn't be a prosecution. we have the former secretary of state here. should be genuinely trying to inquire how to gather more information. now, the only interesting facts that seem to be brought up always refer reps back to the arb, which just points up the fact that the information we need -- again, i really want to

emphasize, this was a serious, serious matter for the united states. a loss of four americans is something we need to take ó and investigate, and we did. and the information that we found out, as you pointed out, was not always flattering. there was no question that mistakes were made, and we hopefully learned from them. but that was investigated. so what is the purpose of this committee? and when you look at the e-mails, the request, you look at the requests, the purpose of this committee is to prosecute you, and there will be time enough for that in the next year, and people will do it. we don't need to spend $4.7 million and 17 months to simply prosecute you. the security situation was well known in libya. the security situation in pakistan is well-known. i visited the embassy in yemen in 2009 about a month after someone shot a rocket propelled

grenade through the front door. the security situation there is incredibly serious as well as it is in a whole lot of other places and those are difficult decisions. but the effort here today seems to be that somehow you personally decided not to doj

-- to do this doing being present in the world but also trying to keep our people safe, throughout the history of the

country. my aunt was actually a foreign service officer. way back when. and we have lost many diplomats and she tell mets about it all the time, and it's a difficult balance. if we can learn something now about what happened in benghazi, i think that might be helpful, but right now this committee is not doing a service to the four people who died or their families or to prevent any of these future indents from happening. so i thank you for your testimony and leadership and willing toness to do a very, very difficult job. with that i yield the remainder of my time to the ranking member cummings. >> madam secretary, we were talking about the diplomatic security folks on the night of the incident. you appeared you wanted to say a little bit more about that and what they -- speaking of the incident -- would you like to elaborate? >> thank you.

congressman, you know, i don't want anything that is said to me or about me to take away from the heroic efforts that diplomatic security officers exhibited. the five men who were with chris and sean smith, risked their lives repeatedly, and were themselves under grave threat. i wanted to point out that even when we try to get it right, which we do try, sometimes there are unintended consequences, and there is an example out of this tragedy. coming out of previous assessments of attacks on facilities, we now have safe havens, safe rooms in

facilities, particularly residences. the diplomatic security officers were able to get both chris and sean into that safe room. of course the idea behind the safe room, why security experts advocated for them, was to protect our civilians, our diplomats, from attacks like the one that was occurring. the attackers used diesel fuel to set the compound on fire. and the safe room was anything but safe. i'm sure the committee members know that neither chris stevens nor]>tfç sean smith died from injuries directly inflicted by the attackers. they both died of smoke inhalation. and one of the recommendations in this report is when we have

safe havens we need to have equipment that will enable people that are safe within them to withstand what happened in benghazi. the lead diplomatic security officer who was with both the ambassador and sean smith endeavored to lead them to safety through a wall of black smoke. he wanted to get them out of the compound interior, up to the roof where they could be out of the fire and also out of the attackers' assault. he himself nearly died of smoke inhalation. when he looked around to make sure that both sean and chris were with him, he couldn't find them. rather than proceeding and saving himself, which would be a

natural human instinct, he turned back into that black diesel smoke, desperately trying to find chris and sean. he6

additional efforts by the officers and then the cia reinforcements that arrived, find his body or to find him hopefully were unsuccessful. and they had to withdraw because of the continuing attack back to the cia annex before we knew what happened to the ambassador. we were desperate, and we were trying to call everybody we knew in benghazi and libya, get additional help. what appears to have happened at some point later is that libyans found ambassador stevens. and they carried him to the hospital. in benghazi. and libyan doctors labored nearly two hours to try to resuscitate him. and i mention all of this

because i want not just the committee members but any viewers in the public to understand that this was the fog of war. that the diplomatic security officers and then later the cia officers, responded with heroism, professionalism, as they had been trained to do. we thought things would be safe once they took refuge in the cia annex. and as we know, even though that was a highly fortified, much more secure facility than our diplomatic compound, and one that we had nothing to do with in the state department, it current out also to be a target for the militants, which is where the two cia contractors, mr. woods and mr. dougherty, died. but in looking at all of the information, the accountability review board, and particularly

admiral mullen, who was focused on what happened,pç what the security personnel did that night, came out agreeing that they were heroic and they did all they could do to try to save their colleagues' lives. >> thank you. >> the gentleman yields back. madam secretary, i appreciate you going through their heroism. i really do. it is moving to hear, and frankly, it infuriates me to hear folks to my left who don't raise a single whisper about spending $50 million to train five isis fighters, but god forbid we spend a tenth of that to give some answers to the family members sitting on the first row. so i appreciate you discussing their heroism while some of my colleagues discuss money. with that, mr. pompeo.

>> i'd like to add to that. mr. smith give a solely question. it was represent and representative of the behaviors of the democrats on the panel since 2014. not one finger, not one question for a witness. they want to get to the truth but the truth they spent most or their time today attacking members of this committee ask this process, and i regret that. i think that's a violation of most importantly, their duty to the families. i'm going to go back to automatic consecutive things i talked to you about before, madam secretary. ambassador stevens didn't have you e-mail. is that correct? >> i'm sorry. what did you -- >> ambassador stevens did not address. we established that juggle that's right. >> did he have your cell phone number. >> nod, but he had the 24 hour number of the state operations in the to state department that-reach me 24- >> did he have your fax number? >> he had the fax number of the

state department. >> did he have your home address? >> no, i don't think any ambassador has ever asked me for that. >> ever stop by your house? >> no, he did not, congressman. >> mr. blumenthal had each of those and did each of those things. this man, who provide you so much information to you on libya had access to you that were different than a very senior diplomat had to you. they had a picture of a man -- you said you didn't recognize who hewere you ever briefed thae was present at the compound the night that ambassador stevens was killed? >> we're trying to track down the basis of your question, congressman. we have no information at this time. >> my question is, as$u+w yes oo question, it's simple -- >> i don't have any information that i can provide to you yes or no. i know nothing about their do. >>y sew answer of question is

were you briefed, the answer is -- >> we don't know anything about so it how could i be briefed about something we know nothing about? >> thank you. are all arbs created equal? >> well, there have been 19, including the one that we empanelled after benghazi. they've all been led by distinguished americans. they've all been set up in accordance with the laws and rules that the congress established when they created the legislation to establish arbs. so i assume in those respects they are created equal. >> yes, ma'am. i asked a pretty simple yes or no question. i guess -- i'm happy to let you expand and happy to bring breakfast in, but i would -- when i ask a yes or no question, it would be helpful to get to the answer. i wasn't a trick question. are the recommendations of each arb worky of equal treatment?

>> they certainly are worthy of followup by the department, and i believe that they have been. >> it was an arb -- police put up the poster please -- an arb in 1998, to 200 folks were killed. here's what its recommendation said: quote, special 1ç this is from the most recent one. special mission security posture was inadequate for benghazi and grossly inadequate to deal with the attacks. >> acceptedded the recommendations derek injury madam secretary, my question is if you agree with it. >> i don't think that's a relevant question. think the we is, i accepted their recommendations. and i obviously their recommendations were based on their very thorough investigation and analysis. so, clearly, i endorsed the entire board's work. >> in january 2014, senator

feinstein noted conservative, said, quote in her report, the incident at the tmff and cia were likely preventible, end of quote. do you agree with that statement from senator feinstein's report? >> i would like to think that anything of that magnitude and the loss of life could have in some way been preventible. i think that what the arb recommended were steps to try tone hans our ability to prevent -- to enhance our ability to preevent future attacks. >> now i have the right poster. 1998arb said of the secretary of state should personally review the security situation of embassy chanceries and other official premises. closing those which are highly vulnerable and threatened, end of quote,ow told us today you don't think you should have been involved -- quoting again -- permanently reviewing security. how do you square that? >> well, there are couple of important points to make about

this, congressman. first, i made a number of decisions to close embassy chanceries and other official premises based on security. i closed the embase in tripoli april. had to evacuate all of the meshes out of libya. we lad to lease ferries that came from malta. we closed embassies and other facilities when we had a strong recommendation that it was necessary to do. secretarial responsibility. now, with respect to looking at every security request, how high should the wall be, whether there should be barricades placed on the east or west side, that is handled by the security professionals. i recommended that embassies and other facilities be closed, so i understand what that point is.

>> madam sect, this isey or no. do you think you complied with the arb in 1998, personally review the secretary at pentagon benning. >> that's not my understanding of the -- >> just -- the words are right there. >> i just answered, i personally reviewed security recommendations of chancery and other official facilities recommended because they were highly vulnerable, and threatened to be closed, and we closed some. some we were able to re-open, which is kind of part of the process. with respect to the 1998arb recommendations, by the time i became secretary, having succeeded two secretaries who served during very dangerous and threatening times, there was an assessment made that i certainly was briefed into that we had to look at how best to professionalize the security and

the expert advice we were receiving. that was exactly what i did, and i went further than that. i created a new position. a deputy secretary for resources and management. i also had recommended after our arb, the deputy assistant secretary for high threats. so, this was a constant discussion about how to make us secure. but not whether or not the secretary of state should decide on the height of the barricades. i think that is where we may not be fully understanding one another, congressman. >> i think we understand each other perfectly. >> the question about closing embassy chanceries and other official premises that were vulnerable and threatened, of course they came to me. i had to make the decision. deciding whether the wall would be ten feet, 12 feet, whether there we be three security agent

order five, that was the province, as it should have been, of the professionals. >> here's another one from the 1998. arb. the secretary should take a personal and active role in carrying out the responsibilities and ensuring the security of u.s. diplomatic personnel abroad do you believe you complied with that? >> yes, iu&cyy i believe i established a process and i said earlier today, state department and our security professionals have to be 100% right and i think that what happen in benghazi was a tragedy and something that we all want to prevent from ever happening again, but there were many, many situations, many security issues, that we had to deal with during the four years that i was secretary of state. and i did leave what i hope will

be a very important additional position, namely, the deputy for high-threat posts, that now will focus solely on what are considered the highest threat places in the world for our personnel. >> madam secretary, i hope you can understand the defense between creating a deputy underassistant secretary and america's senior diplomat getting involved in security the amount of resources they can be moved, the speed they will move, rested only in your hand -- >> i respectfully disagree with that, congressman. it's been my experience that you want to find people who are dedicated 100% to security. you don't want a secretary or anyone dipping in and out. maybe making decisions based on factors other than what the professionals decide, at least that is my very strong opinion. >> yes, ma'am. leaders lead. i want to -- just got a few seconds. in all the tells produced to us

today, i have not yet found the document that was prepared at your request for post gadhafi planning. did you have such a document prepared prior to the time that mr. gadhafi was removed? >> we mad a number of documents. we had a long list of areas that we were working on, and the process for following up on those areas. don't know if it was one document or a dozen documents but we had lot of work ongoing, both at the state department and at usaid. >> did you have a team work on that or if it was just something that was happening of its own accord? >> we had a number of people working on that. there were -- as i said i sent both deputies out to libya to immediate with the libyans. we can do all the plan we want in washington but it's important to ask the libyans what they want and what they expect from us? so we had an ongoing dialogue that lasted over many months.

>> yes, ma'am. agree with that. we can talk about nat a bit. i yield back. >> the chair will now recognize the generalle lady from illinois, miss duckworth. >> thank you, mr. chairman. secretary clinton, my line of questioning will be boring because i'm going to get some details that have to deal with security and how we can better safeguard america's diplomats from now on. from -- i have to say that the arb conducted by at miller mullen, man of long service to this nation, brave service, as well as ambassador pickerring, i thought was well conducted and well-thought out and in fact don't just take my word for im. but the republican chairman, long-time republican chairman of the house armed services committee also -- and never once good our committee hearing did i hear him malign the work that

was done. so i want to look at some of the findings from the arb and specific he he failures me blue mountain libya security guards and the militia on that september 11, 2012. my understanding is in pentagon benning, -- in benghazi neither the militia forces nor the state department private local guards were capable of defending our personnel. these poorly trained forces either did not show up, retreated in the face of danger or lacked the necessary fools to fight back. i want to learn the lesson from benghazi and hold everyone accountable, not just the state department but every agency involved, as well as congress ourselves, and this committee itself. implementing significant come mensive reforms that -- comprehensive reforms that it will prevent future tragedies. looking at the work i've done on armed services committee and oversight government reform i'm concerned with the cost and

consequence office federal contract mismanagement. cost american taxpayers a lot of dollars. i want to look at the state department's policy for awarding local guard contracts using a very inflexible contract vehicle known as the lowest press tech nick cliff acceptable or lpta vehicle. i think that's should have raised red flags here in congress. when life and limb are at risk, buying body armor for troupes overseas or barriers for embe as, i don't know that lowest price technically acceptable is the right vehicle. can you discuss why is it that the state department appears to have awarded local guard contracts in libya using this crag method. >> congresswoman, i think that's another very important question. i think the state department, like much of the rest of the government, often feels under pressure to go to lowest price, whether or not that lowest price is the best contract, and we had

a lot of challenges, not just in libya but in men places -- many places around the world, trying to work to find the right contractorses to provide static security for a lot of our posts, and facilities, to find more kinetic contractors who could be the front line of defense since we -- as we discussed earlier, were stationed in so many laces there were not american military that could be calleds' respond. so i would like very much, and perhaps there could be a working group with armed services and foreign affairs and others to look to see whether we couldn't get a little more flexibility into there is decisionmaking because the february 17th february 17th militia was viewed by the cia, which had vetted it, as well as by our diplomatsings as a reliable

and -- dim polites as reliable support for kin it -- kinetic support. sometime it worked 0 didn't and static support was not useful. you're raising an important issue how to get more fleckibility into the contractor because we're not going to be able to bring american mel tear forces to everybody plagues where we are, either a high-threat post because the military can't afford to do it or because the host country won't invite us, some the other problem is that if the host country doesn't have any real resources, it's hard to know how much they can produce. that night i was calling the president of libya, and demanding that he find any friendly militia, any friendly anybody to show up and to support us. when our reinforcements fromtip

my handed a militia showed up. so it's a very unpredictable and even erratic process and starts with in many instances lowest price, and i don't think that's always the best way to get a contract for security. >> i happen to agree with you, and i think actually the lppa sets inflexible standards for specifically the department of state is actually a law passed by wong in 1990. so when -- by congress in 1990. so when you talk about a working group, come needs to do our part and maybe amend a 35-year-old law that forced the state department to go with the lowest price. secretary clinton, can you address what actions congress can fix problems that have to do with host country instituted ingent policy given the universe private security guards? my understanding is the country

of libya, the host nation, in this case, did not allow your security contract are to carry firearms. did the blue mountain guards -- the blue nowed guards were not -- >> that's right. >> yes, the new mountain was. our diplomatic security officers were. the militia members supposed to be providing kinetic help for us were. so it was only the static guards that were not. now, i will say that some of those guards did stand their ground. they were basically run over. several of them were injured the night of the attack. so i don't want to cast aspersions on all of them and the service they provided, but it was not adequate for what we needed then or really at any time. >> are we facing that same type of prestrucks in other nations, other hot spots? we talked about the 19 missions that are out there. would this type of issue with

the lpta and contracting and as well as host nation requirements? >> yes, we do. the host nation gets to call a lot of the shots. under the vienna convention the host nation is responsible for providing security for diplomatic posts. brut when a host nation is unwail, which we have some places. >> -- with the libyans there was a desire to the helpful but not a capacity to produce what we needed. we have to really work hard to get the kind of support that is required, and some cases we have been able to work out arrange. s with the host country, some we have just defied them and tried to be very quiet about what we were doing, and others we are prohibited. so it's a constant -- again,

goes back to that balancing of risk and reward that we're always doing. >> going back to the arb conducted by admiral mullen and ambassador pickerring, how many of their recommendations did you as accept of state accept? >> i accepted all of them. they made 29 recommendations, comewoman. i accepted all 29 of them, and began to implement them before i left the state department, and i know that secretary kerry has continued that work. >> do you recommend for future secretaries and for this committee and other members of congress a formal review process as we go onward? i don't want there to be a review process that is triggered by death of americans. my earlier yes, institutionalization of this process. we make sure that our men and women in embassies are safe and they're safe tomorrow and a year from now and ten years from now. what needs to be done so that we can make sure that our four

heroic dead did not lay down their lives in vain? vç attacks in benghazi, the congress never fully funded the security requests that the administration sent to congress. following benghazi that has improved but there are still areas where i think greater funding and responsive responsiveness would be helpful. it was unfortunate we didn't get all the resources that's might havable -- have enabled us to do more but i appreciate what the congress has done since. the one specific recommendation that i would like to see the congress act on expeditiously is the training facility set up in order to train diplomatic security officers, specifically for these high-threat situations, and i think this is

overdue. i know that on a bipartisan basis, representatives from virginia, which the state where the site that has been identified is found. have urged in a recent op-ed that the congress act on this. i would certainly echo that as well. >> thank you. >> madam secretary, they called votes but we're going to try -- i'll recognize mr. brook for ten seconds. >> thank you, mr. chairman. just to clarify for the record i made a statement previously we received none of undersecretary patrick kennedy's i'ms. we received some through production of other individuals' e-mails. we have not received a full production of undersecretary patrick kennedy residents e-mails. so we have some but it is threw other e-mail production, thank you. >> gentleman from illinois. >> secretary clinton, can i direct your attention to the screen?

we came, we saw, we died. is that -- >> the millings undertaken by other partners achieved its -- therefore no more american european or arab lives would be at stake in trying to prevent gadhafi from wreaking havoc on libyans or causing more problems to the region and beyond. >> i want to direct your attention and maybe direct the group's attention to something that hasn't been discussed. there's been this criticism of republicans being partisans today. but i want to direct your attention to what is going on disyou and your team, many of whom are here today with you. so, jake sullivan, one of your

cries advisers you told us about, put together the ticktock on libya enemy ma that was all about you. put together 22 different accomplishments and you were the central figure in all 22 of those accomplishments. and i've got to tell you, it's really pel put together. he uses language of action and initiative. hrc -- you -- announces direct, appoints special envoy, travels to g8, secures russian abstention. secures transition of command and control, travels to berlin, rome, abu dhabi, he is basically laying the foundation that the libya policy is your policy, essentially he is making the argument that it's your baby and you were clearly familiar with this timeline because in e-mail exchanges with your senior staff, you were not happy about it, and the part you weren't

happy about wasn't that you were the focal point, is that it didn't include enough you said, this is your e-mail -- what bothers me is that the policy office prepared the timeline, but it doesn't include much of what i did. another time you said: the x is totally inadequate, which port bothers me about our record-keeping. i was in paris in 3-19 when the attack started. it's not on the timeline. what else in missing? go over as soon as possible. now, this timeline was put together, according to your senior staff, explicitly for an article that came out in the "washington post" entitled "clinton's key role in libya conflict." and in fact according to your staff, quote, the comprehensive ticktock memo jake put together was done in large part for the warwick piece, and according to

your staff the great detail he had came entirely from jake, jacques sullivan. he didn't do any independent research. according to your staff. now, this article is one of these articles that you read a couple of times. if it is about you. here's some excerpts. "washington post": a foreign policy success for the obama administration and its most famous cabinet minister, secretary of state hillary rodham clinton. or this: she went to paris. there will no instructions from. the white house who to support strong action in libya, stayed a senior state department official. yet within three days the official said, clinton gab to see a -- began to see a way forward. my personal favorite is this: clinton ignoring the advice of state department lawyers convinced obama to grant full diplomatic recognition to the rebels. now, you and your team were pleased with the work that you

did and the risks you took, the leadership you took. a couple of hours ago you told he i'm the diplomat here. i'm driving the policy. isn't it true you had been think about getting political credit for months on in this? >> no. >> well-that's that your answer, let me draw your -- mad dynamic. >> congressman, let me please, if i could -- were trying to make sure that what was written, because it's not always accurate, in case you all haven't noticed in your own careers -- what was written about a very important foreign policy effort by this administration was accurate. this was all in response, as i understand it, to a reporter trying to ask questions and us providing the best possible information we could. in fact, trying to make sure that we ourselves had a good timeline and that our

recordkeeping was>bgx accurate. think that is not an uncommon experience here in washington. some says, i'm writing a story, what can you tell us? and you tell them. >> sect clinton, that's not that was going on. you nye this was good for you. this is what you were writing in august, august of 2011. this is right after tripoli felledful you wrote: what about the idea of my flying to inaugurate's veinyard to see the president for 30 minutes and then making a statement with him alone. or you asked your staff how to convince the white house that this would be good for the president, and these are your words, madam secretary, it's a great opportunity to describe all we have been doing before the french try to take all the credit. in fact, your staff told you they thought it would be a political boost for the president, showing he was huddling with, instead of being on vacation. so you asked your chief of staff, cheryl -- jakes sullivan asked your chief of staff,

cheryl mills, to call denis mcdonough, now the president's chief of staff to put together a fullcourt press -- i'll wait while you read the note. >> thank you. because i don't -- >> here's my question. >> i'm waiting for a question. >> go ahead. you finish reading and i'll start talking. >> one thing i wanted -- >> well -- >> i don't have what you're reading -- >> here -- >> in font of me. >> tab 12. >> that has now been handed to me and it's clear i wanted to make sure christ stevens, jeff feldman, dod, got credit. i wrote that. you've did not quote that. let me -- >> is about state of mind. you were thinking about credit for you. isn't that right? >> no that's not. wanted those who were part of this policy to be given recognition, and i also wanted to be sure that we had the president and the white house coordinating with us. it was a very gutsy decision for

the president to make, congressman. it was not by any means an easy call. as i alluded this morning i was in the situation room many times, watching the president have to balance competing interests, competing opinions, trying to make a decision. when he made the decision, that the united states would support nato and support the arabs there was no guarantee about how it would turn out. and i personally believe he gee served a lot of credit, as did chris stevens, jeff feltman, the department of defense and others. we had a daily secure phone call that often included the president, included the generals and the admirals responsible for our mission, including our top diplomats. this was a very important and challenging effort that we undertook in large measure to support our nato allies. so, i wanted everybody who had any role in it to be acknowledged. >> well, then on august 2011, you received an e-mail from

sidney blumenthal, tab 11, which he wrote this to you: this is a historic moment and you will be credited for realizing it, when gadhafi himself is finally-ñsr removed you should make a public statement before the cameras where you are, even in the driveway of your vacation home you. must go on camera. that was blumenthal admonishment to you. >> don't recall doing that in case you ask me. >> you forwarded blumenthal's suggestion to jake sullivan and you were focused how dramatic it would be. you were working to making this the story of the day in this is k#%uz jake, tab 11: this is your words, madam secretary. sid makes a good case for what should i say but it's premised on being said after gadhafi goes, which will make it more dramatic. that's my hesitancy since i'm not slur how many chances i'll get. so, two months before the end of

the gadhafi regime, and you're already planning on how to make your statement dramatic to >> congressman, i think that what we were trying to do was to keep the american people informed about this policy. it was, as you recall, somewhat controversial there were advocated for and it republicans and democrats who were concerned about it. so i think as secretary of state i did have an obligation at some point to be part of the public discussion about what had occurred, and i see nothing at all unusual about trying to figure out when would be the best time to do that. >> isn't it true your staff heard from the white house after the warwick piece about the amount of credit you were

getting as opposed to the amount of credit the president was getting? >> the president deserves the lion's share -- >> why is this white house update your taking the credit? >> i was often being asked that. president had a lot of other stuff going on. he was still trying to rescue the economy. a lot of other things happening. so, from my perspective, the president deserves the credit '. he made the decision. i was honored to be part of the team that advised him and insofar as i was able to explain what we did and what the import was, was ready to do so. >> so, when jake sully vaccine e-mails you and said that -- you some publishized this. have you lay down something definitive, almost like the clinton doctrine. that wasn't the obama doctrine. is that right, madam secretary? >> i think -- >> this is the clinton doctrine. >> well, look, i think that the effort we made, the way we put

together the coalition, the way i put together the coalition, that imposed sanctions on iran, think there is a lot of talk about. i talked about smart power. you're talking about what i believe. i believe we have to use every tool at our disposal. lead with diplomacy, support with development, and, when necessary, as a last resort, not a first choice, defend. so, yes, is that what i believe? it is what i believe, and i think that libya was to some extent an example of that. >> you were the author of the libya policy. the one that drove itself. i was your baby. it was an attempt to use smart power and that's what you tried to do. isn't that right? >> certainly was something i came to believe was in the interests of the united states to join with our nato allies and our arab partners in doing the decision, as all decisions in any administration, was made by the president. so, the president deserves the historic credit, what role i

played, i am very grateful to have had that chance and i'm very convinced it was the right thing to do. >> you just recited the clinton doctrine to us and let me tell you what i think it is. i think it's where an opportunity is seized to turn progress in libya into a political win for hillary rodham clinton. a precise moment when things look good, take a victory lap, like all the sunday shows before gadhafi was killed and then turn your attention to other things. i yield bang -- >> well, congressman, that is only a political statement which you well understand, and i don't understand why that has anything to do with what we are spoused to be talking about today. >> madam secretary, votes have been called so we will go vote and be in recess and be back as quickly as we can. >> thank you.

>> there you go. that's close to six hours, i believe, six hours of hillary clinton talking about benghazi. let's bring in steven dynan, the political editor for the "washington times" newspaper. one of the goals as stated has been to drive down her politically. and if that it is one goal, has that been today successful? >> oh, i don't think so. look, i think at this point, everybody essentially has their opinion about benghazi. this may get at some of the questions on the sidelines and on the periphery, but if you supported mrs. clinton going in you have seen nothing that makes you question that support. if you didn't like her and didn't support her you have seen nothing that changes that. hairs not a lot of foam in the middle ground and those that are, they're not looking at benghazi to make their decision.

so i hasn't. what it has done is it's explored her leadership, and it's explored some of these ties she has. sidney blumenthal was a particularly rough spot for her. the become and forth over his access to her versus christ city veins, the ambassador, and others' access. so there have beening ins she has to continue explaining but it's not managed to dent her or hix roar. >> sidney blumenthal was an obama hater. he has long been a clinton friend. was not allowed by the administration into her inner circle washing not going to be an employee of the state department, the obama administration said so, because sidney blumen this will that its on and probably still hates on the obamas. we know now because we hey e-mails to that effect. i'm not a sure putting this wedge between camp clinton and camp obama is very helpful

offend inning out what happened at benghazi. >> it does not. the exchange we had over blumenthal was very interest because the question was about whether she vetted his sources, whether she knew where he was getting his information from as he was giving it to her, secretary ode state. she said no, she didn't know that but was very careful to take his name off the e-mail when she passed them on, which shows she way concern about source and validity. itself goes to decisionmaking and she will every to answer holiday the continued to slow his sit -- the schad to change her initial story she never solicited to she didn't initially solicit hit opinion eventually did. she has to lane why she goes to the linton confident can'ts and what information she gets out of them. >> great. hang with us, john bussey, has lots of notes written in red. y?

>> i think he's right. i if you came into there is supporting hillary. if you you still support her. i if you're against her, there's no news breaks in this one. the sidney -- >> nothing new here. >> i didn't see anything. and it's one of a series of hearings now -- >> is the eighth. >> it feels like that. hillary clinton is using carefully modulated reasonable language, spiced live lines like, i had said before, and will repet -- repeat again, and sending the signal good- >> i rather enjoyed this action. this is good. >> the body language, the modulation, what she is saying is sending political signals. she needed to sound reasonable, forthcoming. >> and calm. >> and calm, exactly. the republicans on the panel needed to sound as if this was not a political undertaking because of all the concern now that this is a political -- >> how did that go?

>> i think that clinton is coming out of this so far sounding fairly moderated and rome, getting her points across and accusing politics just before the break, making some kind of political points. >> there was a lot of yelling. >> there was the prosecutorial tone. >> that. >> you want some of that in these hearings. you want your congress people to be carrying about the people's right to know. on the other hand, some of that sounded political. >> is she good at this? >> i think she has had a fair amount of practice. >> is she good? >> she is a lawyer and she is playing this kind of careful role, sounding reasonable, fairly well. >> for now and a half million dollars, steven feet, like this ought to come with popcorn or something. >> you know, it's interesting. the best exchange we got, and the most heated exchange was between the democrats and the republicans on the committee, arguing over a volt or whether to enter sidney blumenthal's

full transcript. she has done fairly well for herself here. she has certainly accomplished what she needed to accomplish, both in coming off as reasonable and in avoiding notify the major pitfalls such as from the 2013 testimony. >> can you explain to our viewers why congress -- that congressman cuppings cummings wants their to be a full transport of blumenthal's testimony and congressman gowdy does not? >> not this particular shaken but there's been a rung issue here where the democrats have accused republicans who control the committee and, therefore, control the rules and have said we're not going to lease all of those things yet excerpts have come out of testimony, and democrats say you're liking only the parts that look pad for mrs. clinton, release the whole thing. so that is what this fight was over. if you have the blumenthals e-mails you asked him about the e-mails. lefts let everybody see. >> it's a pretty neat trick they

pulled. they decide not to establish rules and go only with the rules that are rules of the house, which allows them to not release in full and do release only in part whatever they want, which can create whatever sort of sense of things you want it to create. speaking of this particular brawl between congressman cummings and congressman gowdy, it's worth a second look. >> make sure the entire derek. >> that wham i want to too. >> go ahead. >> i move that we put into the record the entire transcript of sidney blumenthal. we'll release the e-mailment let's do the transcript. that way the world can see it.m >> i -- >> the motion is seconded. >> we're not going to take up a at a hearing. -- >> i spoke with the parliamentarian and they responded we have the right to record a motion. the whole truth and nothing but the truth. that's what we want to have.

let the world see it. >> why its you only whatnot mr. blumenthal's transport released. >> i'd like to have them all released. >> the centuriors, even their names. >> let me tell you something. the only -- >> i've asked for sidney blumenthal. that's the only one you asked for. that and miss mills. >> cheryl mills. >> that's not true. >> i don't know. if you're a voter, ifmój you're- >> i'm a voter. i'm watching espn. how about them mets and i don't care about the mets. >> the average american citizen, i think that what you hear at that point is the sound of shaking heads and washington having an involved battle over the introduction of a transcript into the minutes and channels changing. don't think this is as big a political event as many people thought it might be. >> or hoped it might be. is it your sense this is a big

political event and could be mind changing and politically motivating? >> no. i go back to what we talk about earlier. in the middle of oing their i got e-mails from two people who watch politics closely, and one said, wow, this committee ills not the church committee, they're really blowing it. and another guy who said, simply, trey gowdy for president. you took out of this what you went into it with, and i think we exited exactly where we entered. she has her supporters, she has got her dry tractors and the ickes hill will be fought [overlapping speakers] policy, tot over the benghazi i'm e-mails and the attacks. >> that's a rerecuring them with the clintons, you either like them or you don't. >> city ven makes an interesting point. does this cauterize this as an issue in the campaign? >> does this stop the bleed fog. >> yes. >> does it? >> i don't know. this seems to -- having gone kind of nowhere in the course of

deliberations today, lengthy deliberations in which she sat there and answered a lot of questions, dot the voter say i've met if my mine benghazi. i'm moving on. >> this is not a mover. this is just -- this doesn't change anybody's work at the ever. >> i suspect not. that's my calculation. >> i wonder if it's only we here watching. it's sometimes tedious. you have to wait for the fight to breck out to keep you with it. >> i do think there were some substance of exchange that were important ump agree, this probably does cauterize the benghazi situation but what you do have is you have three more releases of e-mails, each of those will get back into whether she was dealing with classified information. that's the lurking danger, not the benghazi situation. >> thank you both. most concerning to me it was one minute after 3:00 eastern time when we decided that this was an

event worthy. so we called up buffalo wild wings and worded them. they said they'd be ready bid 20 minutes past 3:00. it's now four and they're not read so i'm going to go take care of business. we'll get certitude on this one. shep, i have the wings. thank you very much. welcome everybody, i'm neil cavuto. our are how, what a day, on on again, off again, back and forth, heatedded exchanges, and in the mid of this as benning become was being deplated, look what happened on the right of your screen. stocks soaring so if this was leading to political uncertainty that is correct had a funny way of showing that. suffice to say we had some very good news on housing. some bretter than expected news out of corporate america and that seemed to trump the political debate going on in washington right now. i say four today. to chief congressional