space to unredact.it may seem time consuming and backward to do it this way. imagine how good you will feel when you never accidentally reveal the name of an fbi agent who shot someone, or secret information about the iraq war, or that senator ron johnson knew. you weren't trying to disclose that stuff, here is one way not to. seems worth the time. turns out if you close your eyes, you don't actually disappear. turns out there's a potential big change coming right now from an unexpected place, change coming to something the states have been legally able to keep secret from all of us since the very beginning of this country. and it may right now for an unexpected reason finally be about to change. something we are absolutely used to being kept secret from us for centuries, and it may be about to change. that's a big story tonight. you won't hear it anywhere else. that's next. step seven point two one two. verify and lock. command is locked. five seconds. three, two, one. standing by for capture. the most

because interests nothing under the blank space to unredact. it may seem time consuming and backward to do it this way, but imagine how good you will feel when you never accidentally reveal the name of an fbi agent who shot someone or secret military information about the iraq war or senator johnson knew. if you weren't trying to disclose that stuff, here's the way. turns out if you close your eyes, you don't actually disappear. it turns out there is a potential big change coming right now from an unexpected place. it's change coming from something that the states have legally been able to keep secret from all of us since the very beginning of this country and it may right now for an unexpected reason finally be about to change. it is something we are absolutely used to being kept secret from us. for centuries now and it may be about to change. that story is our big story now. you won't hear it anywhere else. i take prilosec otc each morning for my frequent heartburn. because you can't beat zero heartburn. woo hoo! [ male announcer ] prilosec o

speaker, the eason why judicial watch received the information they did in an unredacted basis is because there are criminal penalties associated with that act. those criminal penalties do not exist in the congressional inquiry. the administration is simply taking advantage of that and they know that. and so do all members of congress. this administration was playing games. they're taking advantage of the structure which has been established in the relationship of trying to have the three branches of government

speaker, the eason why judicial watch received the information they did in an unredacted basis is because there are criminal penalties associated with that act. those criminal penalties do not exist in the congressional inquiry. the administration is simply taking advantage of that and they know that. and so do all members of congress. this administration was playing games. they're taking advantage of the structure which has been established in the relationship of trying to have the three co-exist.f government . that's where the speaker said enough is enough. when we recognize that the documents we're getting which are heavily redacted did not could he inside or agree -- coincide or agree with because they asked for it under foia, which has criminal penalties associated with it which meant that those lawyers knew exactly what they were doing and could be held to that criminal penalty point. but in providing them to congress, they would just redact it and then claim might security and we not ever know the difference. we're not stupid. 've been deliberate, we've been cautious, we've stayed

speaker, the eason why judicial watch received the information they did in an unredacted basis is because there are criminal penalties associated with that act. those criminal penalties do not exist in the congressional inquiry. the administration is simply taking advantage of that and they know that. and so do all members of congress. this administration was playing games. they're taking advantage of the structure which has been established in the relationship of trying to have the three co-exist.f government . that's where the speaker said enough is enough. when we recognize that the documents we're getting which are heavily redacted did not could he inside or agree -- incide or agree with because they asked for it under foia, which has criminal penalties associated with it which meant that those lawyers knew exactly what they were doing and could be held to that criminal penalty point. but in providing them to congress, they would just redact it and then claim might security and we not ever know the difference. we're not stupid. 've been deliberate, we've been cautious, we've stayed af

their eyes are looking for answers as to why the state department refused to release an unredacted version of the incriminating road e-mail despite five separate house and senate committee investigation into the september 11 terrorist attack over the course of the past 18 months. and while congress made it clear there's a stone wall around the white house on the issue of benghazi, he will not be allowed to stand. president obama today maintaining his islands and reporters allowed him to avoid any discussion of the congressional subpoena of the secretary of state and the establishment of a select committee to investigate and copy. mr. obama appeared in a joint press conference with chancellor merkel in the rose garden today. the two american reporters and they chose not to ask him about his reaction to the scandal or the committee and certainly not a question about the white house and the stone wall. one of the president's former aides is talking about benghazi. here is national security council spokesman playing stupid on special report with bret baier last night. >> did you also change th

the white house is defending itself this borders on preposterous, awkward explanations, this is unredacted now, after the freedom of information request by judicial watch but redacted when sent to congress, it is preposterous that white house would say it has nothing to do with benghazi, when that is precisely what it is responding to, the issue of benghazi. >>, of course, e-mail from ben rhodes himself, said these demonstrations, that includes benghazi they attributeed it to the mohamad video. they have gravely wounded the agency, they are guilty of what bush administration was often accused of but did not do, that is politicize ill tellgence, cia -- intelligence, the cia should not have been involveed. try to hide behind the cia is a big mistake from top of agency on down. stkphao and how significant to you -plgtthink this developments this a pivotal points from where we'll see, one hope ofs, an opening in the stone wall and the real reality. truth comes spilling out? >> i certainly hope so, let's start with susan rice, and 45 sunday talk shows, i think she is say side show, irrelevant s

the awkward explan iationexplan fact that this is unredacted now but was redacted when it was sent to congress. it's preposterous that the white house would say it has nothing to do with benghazi when that is precisely what it is responding to, the issue of benghazi. >> of course. and the e-mail from ben rhodes itself says these demonstrations. by their own admission, that includes benghazi. look, i think the administration and the cia have gravely wounded the agency here. and what they're guilty of is what the bush administration is on which being often accused of but didn't do and that is politicizing intelligence. this is inevitably a political judgment. let the administration make it case an hold them politically accountable. but trying to hide behind the cia is a big mistake from the top of the agency on down. >> how significant do you think this development is? is this perhaps a pivotal point in which we will begin to see a, one would hope, an opening in the stone wall and the reality, the truth come spilling out? >> well, i certainly hope so. and let's start with susan rice and

lou: the state department refused to release unredacted versions of the e-mail despite the house and senate committee investigations into benghazi, and then finally judicial watch puts forward the information act for all documents related to benghazi and suddenly it is there in redacted form. this is quite surprising to me. your thoughts. >> this was an orchestrated response house republicans to get the truth in these committees which we are entitled to oversight. it shows a lack of law in washington, d.c. that is why we will take up the benghazi committee, lois lerner contempt charges. please up as i does not uphold the rule of law. lou: congressman, we have a portion of the talk that peopled rhodes gave the chamber of commerce filling in for scott pelley, the anchor of "cbs evening news." he said something just the day after the attacks on benghazi. listen to the man that had "cbs news" even as his own network has not acknowledged what occurred or the order in which it did occur. listen, if you will. >> several things, not just reaction to what some felt, but a coordinated effort o

--dash unredacted. told this is what w we're going with. we will blame it on the video and go with this, it is just one cover-up after another from the >> the former deputy director from the cia said i looked up and was certainly surprised to see we were blaming it on a video on the internet. tell me your reaction to the republicans now getting ready to push for this. >> i think it is long overdue. just because we are not getting any answers. for at henry to have to get questions, people are saying let's exhaust every measure we can here because this administration has been very hesitant to tell the truth. let's do everything we possibly can, absolutely demand answers to these questions and that is the appropriate next step to make that happen. >> he pointed to something that is a trend, theme from the white house. it is not just coming from the white house, congresswoman nancy pelosi, let's see what she has to say. >> what i will say is again benghazi, benghazi, benghazi. whatever was in that what i know of what i read in the press about t

president of judicial watch, an organization that also fought for the truth and finally obtained those unredacted benghazi e-mails and documents through a freedom of information request. tom, good evening. thanks for what you have done. how did you get the e-mails and the documents? what did you have to do? >> first, we asked for them. and when the obama administration ignored our request, we went to federal court. we asked for them, by the way, beginning in october of 2012. about a month after the attack. the administration ignored us. we sued in june of last year. finally, because it was in court, the administration promised to turn over the documents. and they waited obviously until the last minute, april 17th, to finally turn over the big smoking gun. >> you know, from october of i guess 2012 until i think you said it was june, you waited for them to give you the information before you went to court. did you think they would ever do it? >> you know, the nice thing about being in court is it's a regular process. it's not a political process like congressional investigations. we knew we were go

million and the 700,000 pages unredakotaed documents, more than 250 people that have been respond -- unredacted documents, more than too people that have been responding, and i ask to include the letter to congressman levin that talks about the litany of requests that the i.r.s. has been requested to do. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. ms. jackson lee: i also want to again add into this row -- add into the record a may 7, 2014, letter that emphasize this is a this is a bipartisan investigation, with the inspector general of the treasury tax administration appointed by george bush working with the u.s. department of justice. it negates very visibly any suggestion of conflict of interest or that this is a biased investigation. in addition, i think it is very important to note that we are the congress and the administration, but i take great issue in suggesting the lack of integrity of our employees in the federal government. that they would do anything to undermine an official investigation and the letter that we received on february 3, 2014, debunks any personal relations

when they got their hands on the real documents and looked at the unredacted, this is what was in that right, because a lawyer can prosecute an actual case to try to get to the bottom of what actually happened where as five different congressional committees coming at it are not equipped to conduct what needs to be conducted here, which is something like a criminal investigation, and if the justice department won't do it, they obviously won't, it's got to be done by a select committee with subpoena power -- >> do you think john boehner will call for that? >> i don't understand why he hasn't called for it already. if he doesn't do it now, it's unexplicable. >> you said even egypt had nothing to do with this video. >> the video is a fraud through and through. the video had nothing to do with benghazi and it's unfortunate the people accepted it had something to do with cairo. what was actually violent rioting, happened on the circumstances of where al qaeda elements were threatening the embassy for weeks to try to get actually the freedom of the guy i prosecuted in the '90s, which is a bi

to the extent we're having trouble getting documents and unredacted documents he'd be considered recordsustodian for the state department but it's not necessary that he testify unless he has firsthand knowledge, and my suspicion is i think he was still in the senate at time this happened. >> that's right. to make clear, if former secretary of state hillary clinton and dr. susan rice, current national security adviser, are not willing to come before your committee willingly, you will subpoena them? >> jake i can't imagine that they would not be willing to come, but i can also tell you this -- >> i can. >> well, i -- i -- i'm going to err on the side offing confident they would want the american people know the full story. in the case of dr. rice, she's never been before a full committee of congress. they have information that i think is beneficial in advancing the investigation and we're going to get that information. >> you will subpoena them if they don't come willingly? >> it doesn't have to be a subpoena. you can always take a deposition, do a witness interview. there are a myriad of

. >> i needed the evidence and the documents unredacted and i need access to the witnesses, and thenraw whatever conclusions you want and intent to cover-up, negligence, a benign mistake, and you can draw whatever conclusion you want, but you can't draw any conclusions if you don't have the evidence. >> and let's bring in the huffing post senior political reporter, and managing editor amanda terkel, and also "washington post" reporter david nakamura. >> and so, trey gowdy is insisting this is not a witch hunt. what do you think? >> well, they are going too far, and they are looking for a contempt vote for former irs official, and $156 billion tax break that is not really, and has no chance of going anywhere and the white house said that it will veto it, so right now, what they are doing is to try to gin up some excitement in front of the base in front of the 2014 elections and maybe get out ahead of a possible hillary clinton run since she was secretary of state in the benghazi incident, and get out in front of the 2016 election, and so maybe it is political and not what the american

martha: judicial watch got their hands on unredacted versions. that's what has blown this whole thing open. what can we expect from john boehner in terms of wanting to hear from john kerry. >> i think john boehner was very strong when he said the white house concealed these documents. that's a strong allegation, a well founded allegation. you can see john boehner ratcheting up the pressure and becoming increasingly frustrated by what has clearly been an effort by the white house, the administration, to with hold document from congress. the house oversight reform committee which originally subpoenaed these documents received in the past month 3,200 pages of new documents. so for people who want to say benghazi is an old story and we know everything there, it's simply not true. when i hear people say that i think they just don't know what they are talking about. martha: the house oversight committee wanted seen a power for a long time. but they didn't get support from john boehner on that. does the game change now? >> i think it does. this is one o

in recent weeks, we've had them in the unredacted form in a secure room here in the capitol. so -- and we did that so nobody could claim, well, if i only knew what was in those memos, i could make up my mind. every single senator has had an opportunity to read them. and we've heard some senators argue the justice department legal analysis provides the government with a blank check to use lethal force against americans in places like germany or canada. oh, my god. talk about grasping at straws. we're dealing with reality here, not "alice in wonderland." such a claim is simply inaccurate, inconsistent with the understanding anybody would have reading these materials. in any event, the attorney general has confirmed that anwra al-alwaki is the only american who was specifically targeted and killed since 2009. and alwaki was a senior operational leader of all of al qaeda in the arabian peninsula, located in yemen. he directed the failed attempt to blow up an airliner over detroit on christmas day 2009. he was continuing to plot attacks against the united states when he was killed

million and the 700,000 pages unredakotaed documents, more than 250 people that have been respond -- unredacted documents, more than too people that have been responding, and i ask to include the letter to congressman levin that talks about the litany of requests that the i.r.s. has been requested to do. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. ms. jackson lee: i also want to again add into this row -- add into the record a may 7, 2014, letter that emphasize this is a this is a bipartisan investigation, with the inspector general of the treasury tax administration appointed by george bush working with the u.s. department of justice. it negates very visibly any suggestion of conflict of interest or that this is a biased investigation. in addition, i think it is very important to note that we are the congress and the administration, but i take great issue in suggesting the lack of integrity of our employees in the federal government. that they would do anything to undermine an official investigation and the letter that we received on february 3, 2014, debunks any personal relations

i need all the evidence, unredacted and access to all the witnesses and then you are welcome to drawons you want but you can't draw any conclusions if you don't have the evidence. >> mika, i got to say this, so. when i was practicing law, if the other side asked me to produce documentation involved in an incident and i did what the white house did and i kept an e-mail that goes to the heart of it and i didn't produce it, i would be one nervous attorney because the judge could hold me in contempt of court, in a civil case or criminal case, for withholding information. i don't know if you call that a coverup or not. i know if an attorney did that in private practice, he or she would be in big trouble. >> i'll come back at you and say i've been very critical about how the whole roll-out of benghazi happened, with susan rice being put on "meet the press" and i'm skeptical about what trey gowdy is say, as well. you can say you have a cover up and you can say you have questions still because there's been 30 investigations. it's somewhere in the middle. what are you talking about? >> there

. >> now that judicial watch has actually gotten their hands on some of these unredacted e-mail, the we actually know what was going on and there were a lot of shenanigans. >> remember that judicial watch filed a request, freedom of information act last may, irs did not stopped, did not respond. and they were asking -- judicial watch was asking for all the documents surrounding this scandal and the targeting of tea party groups. they filed suit in federal court in october. now the irs is under a federal court order to turn over the documents and now judicial watch, a citizens group, is getting more information than our elected representatives. >> well, the government certainly does have a loft explain -- lot of explaining to do. thank you for your information on this. >> thank you. >> all right. coming up, did you just take a sip of coffee? if you haven't, you will. you might want to actually slow down. we're about to tell you why. then you know him from full metal jacket. this morning we'll see a whole new side to lee ermey. he's going to the dogs. good morning to you, sir. ♪ ♪ >>>

so ron wyden is supporting was this on the back of senators getting a chance to look at the unredacted memo ahead of its public release what i think based on the vote that we saw all of this have to noon the the cloture vote on the bare nomination this is one vote before. final votes there hasn't been officially confirmed this is just ending the debate over some nation fifty two votes supported it so it looks like the white house in the senate majority leader harry reid have the votes they need to confirm barrett when it comes down to that point and i think it speaks to you know why the white house had to release these memos they got fifty two votes they needed fifty one and we know that there were some democrats like ron wyden on the fence like senator mark udall who were threatening to not vote for david baron unless this these memos were released so he got those votes it looks like it's headed for passage in the white house was never expecting to get rand paul's vote on this anyways rand paul has viewed the memos and he says that he's not voting for david baron not because the memos

we don't have to have individual private citizens like judicial watch get the e-mail unredacted.n congress to get to the bottom of this. >> what is the message you have for our troop on this memorial day? >> i hope we can move away from saying memorial day to saying honor memorial day. this is the day we remember those men and women who gave the last full measure of devotion from lexington and concord to the mountain passes of afghanistan to make sure the great hope of this earth, the constitutional republic that we call america will be a beacon of freedom. >> honor memorial day. instead of mattress commercials to get a discounted mattress this weekend. colonel, great to see you. and honor memorial day. >> thank you so much, memorial day. >>> and coming up. look at this, a motorcycle driver runs right into a car and look what happens next. >>> and he's a veteran that's memized the names of every service member who died in afghanistan. and he's writing them all on this wall in order. how does he do that from memory? we're talking to him next. good job! still runnng in the morning?